mm 


I 


!ip!ii1iii 

ill  i';!!''  ii  i';:i''in'''i:  ':^ 

|!iiii'!M!i!'iiii!iilli   iiii:: 
!li!J!in!!:;|iiiliii!ii';Mi;i'!!;P^ 


nMpX-'l''''n 


I    il    ! 


I 


!/'Mi!:;':,:i^ 


11 !  iiiiil 

l|ipijj|jj||J!ji|  l|{j|ijip 


I    II 


iiiiii  iiiii!iiiii[ 


II 


11 


I  II 


M!!!|,  !j 


I  i  tilllit 


^'''i:':!''vn|i[!;i!';:|;i;';i;.;'|:i'M;; 
Mi!in;i|Mi:^'IJii:ii'lii:i!i.jn''-(n 


I     Inl,!l:,:ii:, 


I:^'!^'i 


hiii.iiii' 


III 


I    I    it 


ilpHj"!;;'!; 

IlilihiH';! 


,_,  ;!:i:,:;ijv;':,:::::'; 


IIHil!illi'!!'|i 

i 


;';!, 


i!iijiiiiiiii!iiil!liyil!lH 


II 


II 


ili||i'l:'''!i,iii 
1 


i'''iMi|;li 


II  iiili' 


mm, 


I'll';!; 


/ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/essaysinpentateuOOwienrich 


BY  THE   SAME  AUTHOR 

STUDIES  IN  BIBLICAL  LAW 

BY 
HAROLD   M.  WIENER,  M.A.,  LL.B. 

OF    LINCOLN'S    INN,    BARBISTEB-AT-LAW, 

FORMERLY    A    SENIOR    WHEVVELL    SCHOLAR   OF    THE 

UNIVERSITY    OF    CAMBRIDGE 

"  As  a  whole,  these  *  Studies '  are  of  unusual  worth.  They  ac- 
complish for  certain  Old  Testament  themes  what  Greenleaf,  Lyt- 
tleton,  and  West  did  in  New  Testament  lines ....  no  one  will  doubt 
that  the  author  has  attempted  a  most  important  task  and  has 
succeeded  well.  He  has  done  much  to  clear  the  atmosphere  where 
there  was  overmuch  fog.  The  work  deserves  to  be  well  known 
among  all  students  of  the  older  part  of  God's  Word." — Review  and 
EoHposiiior. 

"  It  is  bold  and  refreshing  ....  our  writer  goes  over  ground 
trodden  nearly  two  thousand  years  ago  by  the  sages  of  the  Mish- 
nah ;  but  he  strikes  out  his  own  line  and  stands  forth  much  more 
logical  than  the  old  Pharisaic  doctors." — 'New   York  Evening  Post. 

"There  is  no  doubt  that  in  this  examination  of  the  Biblical  jural 
laws  Mr.  Wiener  has  opened  up  a  new  and  valuable  source  of  infor- 
mation as  to  the  dates  of  the  various  books  of  the  Pentateuch." — 
Academy. 

". . . .  both  novel  and  interesting The  method  employed  is  an  in- 
genious and  skillful  application  of  the  principles  of  legal  interpre- 
tation to  texts  in  apparent  conflict." — Harvard  Law  Review. 

"  In  the  simplest  and  quietest  way,  though  with  a  very  firm 
grasp  of  the  subject,  the  author  shows  the  impossibilities,  and  in 
some  cases  the  real  absurdities,  of  certain  contentions  of  modern 

criticism ;  and  in  our  judgment  he  clearly  convicts  the  writers 

referred  to  of  sacrificing  reality  and  common-sense  to  matters  of 
philological  theory.  .  .  .  We  recommend  this  volume  to  the  careful 
attention  of  our  readers." — Churchman  (London). 

"Altogether  the  volume  is  one  of  great  importance  and  value." — 
Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

LONDON:     DAVID   NUTT 

57-59   LONG  ACRE. 


ESSAYS  IN  PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM 


Essays  in 
Pentateuchal  Criticism 


BY 


HAROLD  M.  WIENER,  M.A.,  LL.B. 

}) 
OF  LINCOLN'S  INN.  BARRISTER-AT-LAW 

Author oj  "STUDIES  IN  BIBLICAL  LAW" 


OBERLIN,   OHIO 
BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY 

1909 


COPYRIGHTED.  1909 

BY 

BIBLIOTHKCA  SACRA  COMPANY 


THE  NEWS  PRINTING  COMPANY 
OBERLIN.   OHIO.  U.S.A. 


YY  ^ 


TO 
MY  MOTHER 


PREFACE 

The  chapters  of  this  book  have  already  appeared  as  articles 
in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  1908  and  1909.  The  first  five 
chapters  were  published  as  a  series  under  the  title  "  Essays  in 
Pentateuchal  Criticism  " ;  the  sixth  was  written  as  a  sequel  to 
that  series  and  retains  that  character  in  the  present  volume. 
A  few  slips  have  been  corrected,  and  the  discussion  of  the  clue 
to  the  documents  has  now  been  placed  in  its  proper  position, 
but  no  substantial  changes  have  been  effected. 

It  may,  I  think,  fairly  be  said  that  the  general  critical  posi- 
tion represented  by  this  volume  differs  from  the  positions  gen- 
erally held  in  two  fundamental  respects. 

First,  there  is  the  attitude  adopted  towards  textual  criti- 
cism. In  dealing  with  writings  that  have  for  many  centuries 
depended  on  a  MS.  text,  the  first  step  must  be  to  use  all  the 
available  material  with  a  view  to  ascertaining  what  the  authors 
actually  wrote.  In  the  case  of  the  Pentateuch  this  precaution 
has  hitherto  been  neglected.  The  result  is  that  at  the  present 
day  Pentateuchal  studies  are  conducted  on  lines  to  which  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  a  parallel  in  any  other  field  of  re- 
search. Take,  for  example,  Astruc's  famous  clue,  the  use  of 
the  Divine  appellations  in  the  book  of  Genesis.    As  is  shown 


X  Preface. 

in  these  pages,  there  exists  material  to  prove  that  in  an  enor- 
mous number  of  instances  the  Massoretic  text  is  quite  unre- 
Hable  in  regard  to  these  appellations.  The  publication  of  this 
discussion  in  the  Bihliotheca  Sacra  led  to  an  interesting  series 
of  notes  in  the  Expository  Times  (May,  July,  September, 
1909).  At  the  moment  of  writing  it  would  seem  that  the  dis- 
ciples of  Astruc  can  make  no  reply  to  the  notes  in  the  July 
and  September  issues,  and  Professor  Schlogl's  statement  in 
the  latter  of  these,  that  it  is  "  quite  unscientific  to  determine 
the  analysis  of  a  source  by  the  names  of  God,"  has  remained 
unchallenged.  Private  communications  have  satisfied  me  that 
at  any  rate  some  eminent  partisans  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen 
hypothesis  are  unwilling  to  attempt  any  defense  of  Astruc's 
clue,  and  Dr.  Volz's  reviews  of  Eerdmans's  recent  book  on 
Genesis  tend  in  the  same  direction.  It  is  significant  that  Dr. 
Driver  makes  no  reference  whatever  to  the  subject  in  his 
"  Additions  and  Corrections  in  the  Seventh  Edition  of  the 
Book  of  Genesis,"  although,  as  the  preface  is  dated  August 
2,  1909,  he  can  hardly  have  been  unacquainted  with  it.  It 
may  safely  be  said  that  in  this  case  silence  will  not  prove  an 
effectual  defense  against  new  knowledge. 

The  lesson  taught  by  the  history  of  Astruc's  clue  is  driven 
home  by  other  investigations.  A  number  of  further  instances 
where  a  textual  criticism  that  relies  mainly  on  the  extant  evi- 
dence is  able  to  dispose  of  century-old  difficulties  will  be 
found  in  this  volume  (see  especially  pp.  114-138).  Since  it 
was  written  I  have  conducted  some  inquiries  which  reaffirm 
the  lesson,  and  I  hope  to  continue  my  examination  of  the  crit- 
ical case  in  future  numbers  of  the  Bihliotheca  Sacra  and  else- 
where. So  far  as  I  have  gone,  I  have  found  the  evidence  ever 
more  favorable  to  a  view  that  would  attribute  the  narrative 
difficulties  of  the  Pentateuch  not  to  a  variety  of  sources  but  to 


Preface.  xi 

the  influences  that  normally  operate  on  every  MS.  text  that 
is  assiduously  copied.  The  only  reasonable  basis  for  scholarly 
work  must  be  a  scientific  critical  text,  and  the  successful  for- 
mation of  that  text  will  be  possible  only  if  the  principles  of 
impartiality  and  economy  of  conjecture  are  rigorously  ap- 
plied. 

The  second  great  differentia  of  my  position  lies  in  the  view 
I  take  of  the  first  principles  of  all  scholarship.  For  example, 
I  hold  that  technical  investigations  require  for  their  success- 
ful conduct  technical  training.  Is  it  possible  that  in  our  own 
days  a  reconstruction  of  the  history  of  Israel  that  rests  on  a 
neglect  to  examine  the  available  evidence  and  an  inability  to 
distinguish  between  a  mound  and  a  house  should  have  found 
world-wide  acceptance?  The  ordinary  higher  critic  and  the 
ordinary  conservative  alike  would  answer  in  the  negative. 
The  critic  would  say  that  the  question  was  too  preposterous 
to  require  an  answer;  the  conservative  would  regard  it  as 
suggesting  an  idea  that  from  his  point  of  view  was  too  good 
to  be  true.  Yet  if  either  will  be  at  the  pains  of  carefully 
studying  the  sixth  chapter  of  this  volume  together  with  the 
book  it  criticizes,  he  will  perhaps  realize  that  the  answer  to 
the  question  must  ultimately  be  in  the  affirmative.  Here, 
again,  I  know  from  private  communications  that  when  pressed 
with  the  main  arguments  put  forward  in  the  present  discus- 
sion higher  critics  have  no  reply;  but,  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
no  public  attempt  has  ever  been  made  on  their  side  to  deal 
with  my  points. 

I  cannot  close  this  preface  without  acknowledging  the  debt 
that  this  book  owes  to  the  writings  of  that  distinguished  orna- 
ment of  his  University  and  his  Church,  Professor  A.  Van 
Hoonacker  of  Louvain.  The  influence  that  he  has  exerted  on 
the  lines  of  my  study  has  been  far  greater  than  appears  from 


xiv  Contents, 

PAGE 

Chapter   V              . 155 

The  Numbers  of  the  Israelites 155 

The  War  with  Midian 169 

Conclusion          .          .            171 

Chapter  VI.    The  First  Three  Chapters  of  Wellhausen's 

Prolegomena          . 175 

Index     I.     (Texts) 227 

Index  II.     (Subjects) 235 

Sketch  Map  of  the  Region  of  the  Forty  Years'  Wan- 
dering OF  the  Children  of  Israel    ....  115 


ERRATA 
Page    8,  line  19,  for  xxx.,  read  xxxii. 

Page  17,  line  14,  and  line   1   of   the   footnote,    for  pronoun,   read 
preposition. 


ESSAYS  IN  PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM 


ESSAYS  IN  PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM. 

CHAPTER    I. 

It  is  often  said  by  supporters  of  the  higher  critical  hypothe- 
sis at  present  current  in  many  theological  schools  that  the 
dominant  theories  are  based  on  the  cumulative  effect  of  a  vast 
body  of  evidence  adduced  from  many  different  lines  of  inquiry, 
and  that,  if  modern  scholarship  be  worth  anything  at  all,  the 
views  of  the  Wellhausen  school  must  be  held  to  be  established 
beyond  all  possibility  of  doubt.  These  contentions  are  not 
entirely  baseless,  although  the  truth  is  very  far  removed  from 
the  micaning  of  those  who  maintain  them.  It  is  the  fact  that 
the  higher  critics  have  purported  to  conduct  many  different 
inquiries ;  but  it  is  also  the  fact  that  they  rarely  succeed  in 
making  am  accurate  statement  on  any  subject  that  has  a  bear- 
ing on  their  main  hypothesis.  Indeed,  if  accuracy,  care,  thor- 
oughness, impartiality,  be  essential  elements  in  scholarship — 
and  we  apprehend  that  we  shall  find  much  support  for  the  opin- 
ion that  they  are — these  men  are  not  scholars.  Let  there  be  no 
mistake  as  to  our  meaning.  Nothing  is  further  from  our 
thoughts  than  to  suggest  that  these  writers  have  any  con- 
sciousness of  their  own  deficiencies.  On  the  contrary,  they 
are  all  of  them  sincerely  impressed  with  the  (supposed)  ex- 
cellence of  the  work  done  by  themselves  and  their  friends. 
They  honestly  believe  that  they  are  careful,  accurate,  impartial 

1 


2  Ussays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 

scholars,  and  that  those  who  differ  from  them  are  either  blind- 
ed by  theological  prejudice,  or  else  unacquainted  with  the  facts, 
or  otherwise  incapacitated  from  forming  a  sound  judgment. 
As  they  regard  their  own  laborious  achievements,  they  are 
filled  with  honorable  pride  and  admiration,  and,  believing 
themselves  to  be  great  scholars,  they  naturally  fail  to  realize 
that  any  other  view  is  possible. 

Nevertheless,  as  already  stated,  we  have  been  led  to  form  a 
very  different  estimate  of  these  men  and  their  work.  While 
recognizing  the  transparent  sincerity  that  inspires  most  of 
them,  we  have  found  on  occasions  when  we  have  tested  their 
work  that  an  overwhelming  majority  of  their  statements  on 
relevant  matters  of  fact  were  untrue,^  and  to  our  mind  the 
vast  body  of  evidence  adduced  only  supplies  cumulative  proof 
of  the  incompetence  of  those  who  advance  it. 

It  is,  of  course,  singularly  easy  to  bring  these  divergent 
opinions  to  the  test.  If  we  be  right  in  holding  that  an  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  relevant  statements  made  by  the 
critics  are  untrue,  there  can  be  no  difficulty  (given  the  neces- 
sary time)  in  bringing  home  to  them  such  a  body  of  false  alle- 
gations on  matters  of  fact  as  shall  suffice  to  convince  any 
impartial  observer  of  their  incompetence.  We  have  on  many 
previous  occasions  dealt  with  numbers  of  their  allegations  in 
this  w^y.  It  is  the  object  of  these  essays  to  investigate  a  fur- 
ther batch  of  their  assertions — primarily  those  respecting  the 
main  difficulties  alleged  in  regard  to  the  narrative  of  the  last 
four  books  of  the  Pentateuch — and  the  analysis  which  is  based 
on  those  assertions.  To  this  end  we  propose  to  use  a  book, 
commonly  called  the  Oxford  Hexateuch,^  which  better  than 

^  For  an  account  of  some  of  the  causes  of  this  phenomenon,  see  the 
Princeton  Theological  Review,  October,  1907,  pp.  610  ff. 

^The  Hexateuch  according  to  the  Revised  Version.  Arranged 
in  its  Constituent  Documents  by  Members  of  the  Society  of  Histor- 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  3 

any  other  English  work  represents  the  position  of  the  Well- 
hausen  school  in  regard  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  to  deal  with 
the  various  topics  raised  in  its  notes  oni  the  narrative  sections 
of  the  last  four  books.  We  shall  omit  small  and  unimportant 
points,  and  questions  which  relate  to  textual  criticism  rather 
than  higher  criticism  (so  far  as  these  two  can  be  sundered), 
and  we  shall  supplement  that  work  with  other  books,  especial- 
ly the  volume  on  Numbers  contributed  to.  the  International 
Critical  Commentary  by  Dr.  George  Buchanan  Gray  and  the 
commentary  on  Deuteronomy  in  the  same  series  from  the  pen 
of  Dr.  Samuel  RoUes  Driver.  The  arrangement  of  the  sub- 
jects will  be  dictated  solely  by  convenience.  It  is  not  practi- 
cable to  adhere  closely  to  the  order  of  the  commentary,  as  a 
single  difficulty  often  affects  a  group  of  passages  scattered 
over  the  Pentateuch ;  but  we  hope  to  deal  with  every  really 
important  allegation  as  to  discrepancies  in  the  narrative  of  the 
last  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  before  closing  these  essays. 
To  make  the  inquiry  intelligible  to  those  who  are  not  ac- 
quainted with  the  higher  critical  case,  a  bald  outline  of  their 
theory  must  be  given.  There  were  in  existence  at  some  time 
during  the  Hebrew  monarchy  two  documents  denoted  respec- 
tively by  the  symbols  J  and  E.  Each  of  these  documents 
must  be  conceived  as  the  work  of  a  school  of  prophetic  writers 
rather  than  as  the  product  of  individual  effort.  A  redactor 
(Rje)  combined  these  documents  into  a  single  work  called  JE, 
which  cannot  always  be  resolved  into  its  component  elements. 
In  doing  so  he  selected  portions  now  of  one  document  and 
now  of  another,  rejecting  whatever  was  unnecessary  for  his 
ical  Theology,  Oxford.  Edited  ...  by  J.  Estlin  Carpenter  and  G.  Har- 
ford-Battersby.  2  vols.  London,  New  York,  and  Bombay:  Longmans, 
Green  &  Co.  1900.  Mr.  Carpenter  writes  the  Introduction  and  Notes. 
A  second  edition  of  the  Introduction  (but  without  the  text)  has 
appeared  under  the  name  of  "  The  Composition  of  the  Hexateuch  " 
(1902),  and  will  be  referred  to  where  necessary. 


4  Essays  in  Pcntateuchal  Criticism. 

purpose,  and  sometimes  writing  or  rewriting  a  section  himself. 
Later  on,  the  bulk  of  Deuteronomy  was  produced  by  a  pro- 
phetical school  (D).  This  was  combined  with  JE,  yielding 
JED,  and  a  Deuteronomic  redactor  (R^)  gave  sundry 
touches  to  the  extant  portions  of  JE.  These  constitute  the 
total  of  the  prophetical  contributions  to  the  Pentateuch.  They 
extend  from  the  early  monarchy  till  the  reign  of  Josiah  or 
later.  Side  by  side  with  these  is  a  priestly  document  (P), 
which  is  itself  composite.  The  bulk  of  it  is  of  exilic  or  post- 
exilic  origin);  but  it  includes  the  remains  of  an  earlier  code, 
the  Law  of  Holiness,  known  as  H  or  Pl^  A  redactor  writing 
in  the  spirit  of  the  priestly  school  (RP)  combined  JED  with 
P  into  (substantially)  the  present  Pentateuch,  giving  some 
incidental  touches  to  the  earlier  documents.  Each  of  these 
main  documents  J,  E,  D,  and  P,  being  itself  the  work  of  a 
school,  is  composite,  and  should  be  separated  into  different 
strata. 

In  examining  this  theory,  so  far  as  it  rests  on  alleged  dis- 
crepancies in  the  narrative  of  the  first  four  books,  we  start 
with  the  most  important  point,  the  clue  to  the  documents. 
In  all  our  quotations  from  the  various  writers  to  be  quoted 
we  substitute  "  the  Lord  "  for  their  transliterations  of  the 
Tetragrammaton,  a  free  use  of  which  is  regarded  with  dis- 
favor by  Jewish  writers. 

THE   "  CLUE  ''    TO   THE    ''  DOCUMENTS.'' 

Mr.  Carpenter  states  the  critical  case  with  respect  to  this 
as  follows : — 

"  The  real  key  to  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  may  be  said 
to  lie  in  Ex  vi  2-8.  .  .  .  Two  facts  of  the  utmost  importance  are 
here  definitely  asserted.  In  revealing  himself  as  the  Lord,  God  af- 
firms that  he  had  not  been  known  by  that  name  to  the  forefathers 
of  Israel ;  but  he  had  appeared  to  them  as  El  Shaddai.  On  the  basis 
of  these  words  it  would  be  reasonable  to  look  for  traces  in  Genesis 


Essays  in  Pentaieiichal  Criticism.  5 

of  divine  manifestations  to  the  patriarclis  under  the  title  EI  Shad- 
dai,  and  their  discovery  would  afford  a  presumption  that  they  be- 
longed to  the  same  document.  On  the  other  hand  the  occurrence  of 
similar  manifestations  in  the  character  of  the  Lord  would  directly 
contradict  the  express  words  of  the  text,  and  could  not  be  ascribed 
to  the  same  author.  The  distinction  which  Astruc  adopted  has  thus 
the  direct  sanction  of  the  Pentateuch  itself,  and  its  immediate  appli- 
cation is  simple  and  easy.  Does  the  book  of  Genesis  contain  reve- 
lations of  God  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  as  El  Shaddai?  To 
Abraham  and  Jacob,  certainly :  *  I  am  El  Shaddai '  Gen  xvii  1  and 
XXXV  11 ;  but  the  corresponding  announcement  to  Isaac  is  missing. 
Mingled  with  these,  however,  are  other  passages  of  a  different  na- 
ture, such  as  the  divine  utterance  to  Abram  xv  7  *  I  am  the  Lobd 
that  brought  thee  out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees ' ;  or  to  Jacob  xxviii  13 
'  I  am  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Abraham  thy  father,  and  the  God  of 
Isaac'  Side  by  side  with  these  stand  many  others  describing  the 
recognition  of  the  Lord  by  the  patriarchs  and  their  contemporaries. 
Between  Bethel  and  Ai  Abram  *  builded  an  altar  unto  the  Lord, 
and  called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord'  xii  8  cp  xiii  4,  18  xxi  33. 
To  the  king  of  Sodom  Abram  declared  that  he  had  sworn  'to  the 
Lord  '  to  take  none  of  the  '  goods '  recovered  from  the  Mesopotamian 
invaders  xiv  22.  Sarai  complained  to  her  husband,  'the  Lord  hath 
restrained  me  from  bearing'  xvi  2.  When  the  mysterious  visitor 
rebukes  her  for  her  incredulity,  he  asks  '  Is  anything  too  hard  for 
the  Lord?'  xviii  14.  Lot  is  warned  by  the  men  whom  he  has  enter- 
tained, '  the  Lord  hath  sent  us  to  destroy '  this  place  xix  13.  But 
it  is  not  needful  to  accumulate  further  instances.  The  name  is 
known  beyond  the  confines  of  Canaan.  The  '  man '  in  search  of 
a  bride  for  his  master's  son  is  welcomed  with  it  at  the  city  of  Nahor 
by  Laban,  '  Come  in,  thou  blessed  of  the  Lord  '  xxiv  31.  And  it  is  of 
such  ancient  use  that  it  can  be  said  of  the  family  of  Adam,  '  then 
began  men  to  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  '  iv  26.  But  unless  the 
writer  of  Ex  vi  2  contradicts  himself,  not  one  of  these  passages  can 
have  issued  from  his  hand."  ( Mr.  Carpenter  adds  a  footnote :  "  It 
does  not,  however,  follow  that  he  would  never  have  employed  the 
name  in  narrative.")      (Oxford  Hexateuch,  vol.  i.  pp.  33  f.) 

In  the  issue  the  main  division  is  effected  into  three  docu- 
ments, the  now  well-known  J,  E,  and  P. 

It  might  naturally  be  inferred  that  the  critics  had  succeeded 
in  dividing  the  early  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  into  three 
documents  in  two  of  which  (P  and  E)  Elohim  was  consistent- 
ly used  to  the  total  exclusion  of  the  Tetragrammaton,  while 


6  Essays  in  Pcntateuchal  Criticism. 

in  the  third  (J)  the  Tetragrammaton  alone  was  used.  We 
believe  that  Mr.  Carpenter  himself  has  sometimes  come  near  to 
drawing  this  inference,  at  any  rate  so  far  as  relates  to  J,  and 
we  must  therefore  begin  by  attempting  to  discover  his  concep- 
tion of  what  the  critical  case  is.  On  page  98  of  his  first  volume 
he  does  indeed  say  in  a  footnote,  that  "  v\^hen  Abraham  enters 
the  story,  the  use  of  the  name  '  the  Lord  '  is  usually  limited 
to  his  descendants,  though  not  invariably  cp  Gen  xxvi  28 
xxxix  3,"  but  in  his  notes  he  puts  forward  other  views.  On 
•page  71  of  the  second  volume  (note  on  Gen.  xlv.  9)  we  are 
told  that  "  the  language  of  this  verse  is  not  inconsistent  with 
J  except  in  the  use  of  '  Elohim  '  which  is  no  longer  dramatic- 
ally appropriate  as  in  xliii  23,  29  xliv  16  between  supposed 
strangers,  and  may  be  due  to  editorial  assimilation  [i.e.  one 
of  the  redactors  whom  we  shall  frequently  meet]  cp  1  24  note." 
The  material  portion  of  that  note  is  as  follows :  ''  There 
remains  the  use  of  the  name  '  Elohim.'  ^  This  appears 
to  be  due  to  the  peculiar  revision  through  which  the  Joseph 
stories  have  passed  [i.e.  a  redactor].  The  name  'the 
Lord'  does  not  occur  in  J  after  xxxix  23.^  It  might  have 
been  expected  in  xliii  29  (cp  xxxix  3  where  an  Egyptian 
recognises  the  Lord's  presence  with  Joseph)  cp  xliv  16  xlv  9." 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  note  on  Genesis  xxxiii.  5  (p.  51) 
which  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  ideas  underlying  these  com- 
ments :  "  The  occurrence  of  the  name  '  Elohim '  in  5  and  11 
at  first  sight  suggests  the  assimilation  of  material  from  E. 
But  J  also  uses  this  name  (cp  xxxii  28)  especially  in  connex- 
ion with  those  who  are  (or  are  supposed  to  be)  outside  the 
close  line  cp  iii  1  xliii  29  xliv  16." 

Now   the   plain   meaning   of  all  these  inconsistent  observa- 

^  Elohim  is  not  a  name  —  but  let  that  pass. 

*  It  occurs  in  xlix.  18,  which  Mr.  Carpenter  assigns  to  a  redactor. 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  7 

tions  is  as  follows :  In  the  abstract,  either  of  two  cases  is  con- 
ceivable. There  might  be  an  author  who  used  Elohim  and  the 
Tetragrammaton  either  indifferently  or  discriminating  them 
on  some  fixed  principle:  or  again  there  might  be  an  author 
who  uniformly  used  the  Tetragrammaton  only.  The  latter  is 
the  case  that  the  critics  would  prefer.  The  reason  (or  perhaps 
instinct)  that  prompts  them  is  not  difficult  to  discern.  It  is  one 
of  the  suppressed  premises  of  their  case  that  the  use  of  lan- 
guage is  throughout  uniform,  rigid,  mechanical.  If  J  can  use 
Elohim  as  well  as  the  Tetragrammaton,  it  becomes  very  diffi- 
cult to  deny  him  Elohim  passages  merely  because  of  the  use  of 
this  term  for  God.  Accordingly  Mr.  Carpenter,  who  has  no- 
ticed a  few  of  the  occurrences  of  Elohim  in  J  (characteristic- 
ally enough  he  has  not  noticed  all)  makes  desperate  efforts  to 
invent  subtle  reasons  which  would  discount  the  effect  of  these 
passages  on  the  minds  of  his  readers. 

The  whole  theory  of  a  division  on  the  basis  of  the  supposed 
clue  afforded  by  Exodus  vi.  3  breaks  down  completely  under 
examination.  We  propose  to  submit  it  successively  to  five  dif- 
ferent tests. 

1.  It  is  not,  in  fact,  possible  to  divide  the  early  portions  of 
the  Pentateuch  into  three  main  sources  (P,  E,  and  J),  each  of 
which  shall  be  self-consistent  in  the  use  of  the  designations 
of  God  and  shall  also  conform  to  a  uniform  practice. 

(1)  As  to  P:  The  Tetragrammaton  occurs  in  two  pas- 
sages of  P  (Gen.  xvii.  1  and  xxi.  lb).  In  both  cases  a  redac- 
tor or  copyist  has  to  be  invoked  to  get  rid  of  it. 

(2)  As  to  E:  The  Tetragrammaton  occurs  in  four  pas- 
sages of  E  (Gen.  xv.  1,  2;  xxii.  11;  xxvii.  7b).  In  all  these 
cases  recourse  is  had  as  usual  to  a  redactor. 

( 3 )  As  to  J :  There  are  here  two  separate  lines  of  argu- 
ment. 


8  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

(a)  The  discrepancy  as  to  the  use  of  the  Tetragrammaton 
which  the  critical  theory  was  designed  to  remove  reappears, 
though  on  a  smaller  scale.  J  uses  the  Tetragrammaton  before 
(according  to  J)  it  was  known.  His  statement  is  that  after 
the  birth  of  Enoch  men  began  to  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  (Gen.  iv.  26).  Yet  not  only  does  the  Tetragrammaton 
occur  very  freely  in  the  narrative  of  the  preceding  chapters, 
but  it  is  actually  put  into  the  mouth  of  Eve,  the  grandmother 
of  Enoch,  long  before  Seth,  his  father,  had  been  born.  She  is 
made  to  say,  "  I  have  gotten  a  man  with  the  Lord""  (iv.  1). 
How  is  this  possible  on  the  critical  theory?  Why  is  it  con- 
ceivable that  the  author  of  J  could  do  that  which,  ex  hypothesi, 
the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  could  not? 

{h)  As  already  stated,  J  uses  Elohim  in  many  passages, 
and  only  a  few  of  these  have  been  noted  by  Mr.  Carpenter. 
We  have  observed  the  following :  Genesis  iii.  1,  3,  5 ;  iv.  25 
(contrast  iv.  1)  ;  vii.  9 ;  ix.  27 ;  xxvi.  24  (in  a  Divine  revelation 
where  the  Name  ought  most  certainly  to  appear  on  the 
critical  theory)  ;  xxx.  29  (28);  xxxiii.  5,  10,  11 ;  xxxix.  9 ; 
xhii.  23,  29;  xliv.  16;  xlv.  9;  xlviii.  15  (twice)  ;  1.  24.  We 
have  seen  that  in  some  instances  Mr.  Carpenter  is  reduced  to 
postulating  redactors,  in  others  he  invents  brainspun  subtleties 
to  account  for  the  word,  while  his  silence  in  yet  others  indi- 
cates that  he  has  not  considered  the  phenomena  they  present. 

2.  An  even  more  serious  objection  is  to  be  found  in  the 
divisions  which  the  critics  are  compelled  to  effect  in  order  to 
carry  through  their  theory.  It  is  one  thing  to  suggest  that  a 
continuous  passage  like  Genesis  i.  1-ii.  3,  or  xi.  1-9,  or  xiv. 
may  be  ultimately  derived  from  a  separate  source;  it  is  quite 
another  to  postulate  such  proceedings  as  are  attributed  to  the 
redactors  of  the  critical  case.  The  following  instances  are  lim- 
ited to  those  in  which  the  appellations  of  the  Deity  are  the  sole 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  9 

or  determining  criterion :  in  xvi.  the  use  of  the  Tetragrammaton 
in  verse  2  compels  Mr.  Carpenter  to  wrench  lb  and  2  from  a 
P  context  and  assign  them  to  J ;  in  xix.,  verse  29  is  torn  from 
a  J  chapter  in  which  it  fits  perfectly,  to  be  given  to  P ;  in  xx. 
the  last  verse  is  assigned  to  a  redactor,  though  all  the  rest  of 
the  chapter  goes  to  E,  and  the  verse  is  required  for  the  expla- 
nation of  17;  in  xxii.,  verses  14-18  go  to  redactors  because  the 
story  is  assigned  to  E  (a  redactor  being  responsible  for  the 
Tetragrammaton  in  11).  An  even  more  flagrant  instance  oc- 
curs in  xxviii.  21,  where  Mr.  Carpenter  is  compelled  to  scoop 
out  the  words  "  and  the  Lord  will  be  my  God  "  and  assign  them 
to  J,  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  verse  going  to  E.  What  man- 
ner of  man  was  this  redactor  who  constructed  a  narrative  on 
these  strange  principles?  In  xxxi.,  verse  3  has  to  go  to  a  re- 
dactor because  the  preceding  and  subsequent  verses  belong  to 
E ;  yet  that  gentleman  actually  postulates  the  redactor's  work 
by  referring  to  the  statement  of  3  in  verse  5.  However,  he  re- 
ceives compensation  in  xxxii.,  where  verse  30  is  wrenched 
from  a  J  context  for  his  enrichment,  though  verse  31  (J) 
cannot  be  understood  without  it. 

During  the  later  chapters  there  are  no  instances,  because  the 
Tetragrammaton  occurs  in  Genesis  only  once  after  xxxix.  23, 
so  that  "  a  peculiar  revision  "  has  to  be  postulated  to  justify 
the  analysis  during  the  remainder  of  the  book.  It  must  be  re- 
membered further  that  we  have  confined  ourselves  to  flagrant 
cases  where  the  Divine  appellations  are  the  sole  or  determin- 
ing criterion :  there  are  others  where  it  is  one  of  the  criteria 
(e.g.  the  assignment  of  v.  29,  the  division  of  the  flood  story). 
It  will  be  felt  that  the  critics  must  have  been  very  hard  up  for 
something  to  believe  before  they  credited  such  theories  as 
these. 

3.     The  third  great  objection  is  alone  sufficient  to  give  the 


10  Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 

coup  de  grace  to  the  whole  theory.^  Unfortunately  somewhat 
lengthy  explanations  are  needed  to  make  it  intelligible:  but  in 
view  of  the  importance  of  the  topic  we  must  ask  our  readers 
to  bear  with  us.  We  shall  show  that  the  text  is  in  many  in- 
stances extremely  unreliable  in  regard  to  the  occurrences  of 
the  Tetragrammaton  and  Elohim,  and  that  the  critics  have  ef- 
fected their  partition  on  the  basis  of  a  text  which  is  sometimes 
demonstrably  wrong  and  frequently  quite  uncertain. 

The  oldest  biblical  Hebrew  MSS.  of  which  the  date  is  cer- 
tainly known  do  not  go  back  before  the  seventh  century  of  the 
Christian  era.^  They  are  therefore  not  the  earliest  extant  wit- 
nesses to  the  text.  Moreover,  with  slight  exceptions,  they  all 
represent   one   official   Jewish   recension   of  the  Hebrew  text. 

^  Our  attention  was  first  drawn  to  the  evidence  of  tlie  Versions  in 
this  connection  by  a  notice  of  a  paper  by  Dr.  H.  A.  Redpath.  After 
working  at  the  subject,  we  wrote  and  aslied  an  eminent  disciple  of 
Astruc  and  Wellhausen,  how  he  dealt  with  the  matter.  In  reply  he 
referred  us  to  an  article  by  Dr.  Johannes  Dahse,  entitled  "  Textkri- 
tische  Bedenken  gegen  den  Ausgangspunkt  der  heutigen  Pentateuch- 
kritik,"  in  the  Archiv  fiir  Religionswissenschaft,  1903,  pp.  305-319, 
attacking  the  Wellhausen  theory  on  the  ground  of  the  evidence  of 
the  Versions.  We  have  since  asked  another  eminent  critic  whether 
any  answer  has  been  put  forward  to  Dr.  Dahse,  and  he  tells  us  that 
so  far  as  he  knows  this  has  not  been  done.  Our  views  have  not  been 
materially  affected  by  Dr.  Dahse's  work,  and  it  does  not  appear  that 
Dr.  Redpath  had  ever  seen  or  heard  of  his  paper.  We  have  now 
read  Dr.  Redpath's  paper,  which  will  be  found  on  pages  286-301  of 
the  American  Journal  of  Theology,  vol.  viii.  (1904),  under  the  title 
"A  New  Theory  as  to  the  Use  of  the  Divine  Names  in  the  Penta- 
teuch," and  we  find  that  our  views  differ  very  largely  from  his ;  but 
this  does  not  detract  from  our  debt  to  his  work  for  giving  us  the 
first  clue  to  the  line  of  investigation  here  followed.  We  desire  to 
add  that,  as  far  back  as  1784,  De  Rossi  pointed  out,  in  reply  to  As- 
true,  that  many  instances  of  changes  of  the  Tetragrammaton  into 
Elohim  are  found  in  the  MSS.  (see  his  note  on  Genesis  vii.  1,  Variae 
Lectiones  Veteris  Testamenti,  vol.  i.  p.  10). 

^  Apart  from  the  Nash  papyrus,  which  contains  only  two  short  pas- 
sages. There  is  a  Pentateuch  of  the  year  604  (see  Murray's  Illus- 
trated Bible  Dictionary,  p.  617b). 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  11 

This  recension  was  the  work  of  certain  persons  unknown 
(commonly  called  Massoretes,  from  a  Hebrew  word  meaning 
tradition)  who  lived  at  some  time  unknown  and  were  guided 
by  critical  principles  that  are  also  unknown.  They  took  steps 
to  secure  the  accurate  transmission  of  what  they  regarded  as 
the  best  text  known  to  them,  and  with  such  success  that  vari- 
ants are  very  rare  in  our  Hebrew  MSS.,  though,  as  we  shall 
see,  they  are  not  unknown,  and  sometimes  preserve  readings 
that  are  superior  to  those  of  the  received  text.  Textual  criti- 
cism has  therefore  to  employ  other  aids  in  addition  to  Hebrew 
MSS.,  and  the  most  important  of  these  are  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch and  the  Versions. 

The  origin  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  as  follows:  At 
an  unknown  date  some  centuries  before  Christ  the  Samaritans 
obtained  a  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch.  They  seem  to 
have  edited  it,  making  additions  and  alterations  that  were  de- 
signed either  for  the  purpose  of  subserving  their  religious 
views  or  else  to  remove  seeming  discrepancies,  etc.  Subject 
to  such  alterations  (which  are  easily  distinguished),  and  to 
such  errors  as  may  have  crept  in  as  the  result  of  some  cen- 
turies of  MS.  tradition,  they  have  preserved  the  Hebrew  text 
in  substantially  the  original  character.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  their  original  MS.  was  better  as  a  whole  than  those 
which  w^ere  the  ancestors  of  the  Massoretic  Text,  but  it  may 
have  had  some  superior  readings,  and,  moreover,  the  Samari- 
tan tradition,  cut  off  from  Jewish  influences  and  preserving 
the  text  in  a  different  character,  may  have  remained  free  from 
some  of  the  later  corruptions  of  the  Jewish  text.  Hence  a 
reading  of  the  Samaritan  is  always  entitled  to  careful  consid- 
eration. 

In  addition  the  early  Versions  are  important,  and  of  these 
the   Septuagint  is  facile  princeps.    It  has   preserved  a  very 


12  Essays  in  Pentateitchal  Criticism. 

large  number  of  readings  that  differ  greatly  from  the  Masso- 
retic  text,  and  is  regarded  on  all  sides  as  the  palmary  aid  to 
textual  criticism.  The  version  that  stands  second  to  it  in  im- 
portance, though  infinitely  inferior,  is  the  Syriac,  usually  called 
the  Peshitto. 

In  order  to  estimate  the  higher  critical  position  properly,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  principle  of  using  the  Versions 
for  textual  criticism  is  universally  accepted  by  modern  com- 
mentators and  applied  in  the  other  books  of  the  Bible.  For  in- 
stance, in  1  Samuel  ii.  1,  for  the  second  "  Lord/'  twenty-eight 
MSS.  and  the  Septuagint  have  "  my  God,"  which  improves 
the  parallelism  and  is  accepted  by  modern  critics.  It  would  be 
extremely  easy  to  multiply  instances,  but  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
refer  to  the  well-known  case  of  Chronicles  and  its  parallels  in 
the  earlier  books.  It  is  usually  the  Chronicler  who  substitutes 
Elohim  for  the  Tetragrammaton ;  but  in  one  or  two  cases  he 
has  the  Tetragrammaton  where  our  present  text  gives  us  Elo- 
him in  the  earlier  books  (cp.  2  Sam.  vii.  2  with  1  Chron.  xvii.  1, 
and  1  Kings  xii.  22  with  2  Chron.  xi.  2).  No  doubt  many  in- 
stances of  various  readings  are  to  be  explained  by  the  desire 
of  late  writers  and  copyists  to  avoid  the  Tetragrammaton,  but 
in  some  cases  it  would  appear  that  the  Divine  Name  has 
ousted  Elohim  from  the  Hebrew  text,  as  in  the  passage  just 
cited  from  1  Samuel  ii.  1,  where  the  parallelism  seems  to  sup- 
port the  variant. 

Coming  now  to  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the 
higher  critics  fully  recognize  the  principle  of  textual  criticism 
as  applied  to  the  Divine  appellations  when  it  suits  their  con- 
venience. (See  attempts  to  apply  it  by  Dr.  Gray  (Numbers, 
pp.  310  f.)  and  Mr.  Carpenter  (liexateuch,  vol.  ii.  pp.  109, 
225,  etc.))  One  of  the  strangest  of  many  strange  phenomena 
in  the  critical  treatment  of  the  Pentateuch  is  to  be  found  in  the 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  13 

extraordinary  mixture  of  simple,  unquestioning  acceptance  of 
the  received  Hebrew  text  and  textual  criticism,  of  knowledge 
and  of  ignorance,  that  characterizes  Mr.  Carpenter's  notes  on 
Genesis.  For  example,  in  his  margin  he  notes  that  in  vii.  9  the 
Targum  of  Onkelos,^  the  Samaritan,  and  the  Vulgate  have  "  the  - 
Lord  ■'  for  ''  God."  He  does  not  seem  to  know  that  one  Hebrew 
MS.  also  preserves  this  reading,  and  that  it  has  a  good  deal  of 
Septuagintal  support.  We  believe  that  his  only  previous 
recognition  of  any  conflict  of  evidence  in  this  matter  is  in  the 
note  on  ii.  4c,  vv^hich  contains  the  highly  misleading  statement 
that  the  Septuagint  employs  "  the  Lord  God  "  down  to  viii.  21 
and  even  in  ix.  12.  This  is  a  fair  sample  of  his  work  in  this 
matter.  How  indefensible  such  a  use  of  the  Versions  is  will 
appear  more  fully  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  exist- 
ing material  w^hich  evidences  differences  of  reading  (not  mere- 
ly through  the  occurrence  of  the  double  phrase  "  Lord  God  ") 
in  an  enormous  proportion  of  the  occurrences  of  both  Elohim 
and  the  Tetragrammaton  both  before  and  after  vii.  9.  Either 
textual  criticism  is  proper,  in  which  case  it  should  be  practised 
with  thoroughness  and  impartiality,  or  else  it  is  not,  in  which 
case  Mr.  Carpenter  should  have  left  it  alone  altogether. 

Now  there  is  always  a  preliminary  question  to  be  asked  in 
using  the  Versions.  Does  the  text  really  represent  a  different 
Hebrew  ?  If  it  be  due  to  a  mistranslation  or  to  some  desire  to 
give  a  rendering  which  shall  be  clearer  than  a  more  literal 
version,  or  if  again  the  variant  be  the  result  of  internal  corrup- 
tion in  the  Version,  it  is  obvious  that  it  wdll  be  of  no  value  for 
the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  text.  That  this  is  not  the  case 
with,  at  any  rate,  the  majority  of  the  readings  we  shall  have  to 
consider,  is  proved  by  the  following  considerations : — 

^  Mr.  Carpenter  probably  means  the  Targum  of  "  Jonathan,"  as  On- 
kelos  habitually  paraphrases.  See,  e.g.,  Genesis  i,,  where  it  has 
•»•»  throughout. 


14 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


(1)  Although  the  divergences  of  the  Hebrew  MSS.  are 
(as  has  been  explained)  inconsiderable,  there  are  yet  a  number 
of  instances  where  there  is  support  for  the  renderings  of  the 
Versions  either  from  one  or  more  Hebrew  MSS.  or  from  the 
Samaritan  or  from  both. 

In  the  following  lists  we  give  some  variants  recorded  by  (a) 
De  Rossi  and  (b)  Kennicott  in  their  collations  of  Hebrew 
MSS.  We  have  added  to  these  some  notes  on  various  Septua- 
gintal  readings  taken  for  the  most  part  from  the  larger  Cam- 
bridge Septuagint.  It  will  appear  hereafter  that  the  readings 
of  the  Septuagint  present  peculiar  difficulties.  We  shall  have 
to  make  certain  suggestions  as  to  the  solution  of  these  difficul- 
ties at  the  proper  time.  For  the  moment  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
notice  that  there  are  variations,  and  that  sometimes  a  Septua- 
gintal  reading  that  has  little  Greek  authority  is  supported  by  a 
Hebrew  MS.  As  we  do  not  read  Syriac,  we  have  relied  on 
Kittel's  BibUa  Hebraica  for  the  readings  of  this,  as  also  of  the 
less  important  Versions. 

De  Rossi  chronicles  the  following  variants : — 


Refeeence. 

Received 
Text. 

De  Rossi. 

Other  Sources. 

Gen.vii.  1. 

Lord. 

2  MSS.  God. 

Samaritan,  Syriac,  God. 
The  best  MSS.  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint, Lord  God,  with 
some  authority  for  God 
only,  and  Lord  only  in  1 
cursive. 

Gen.  vii.  9. 

God. 

1  MS. 

Samaritan,      Targum      of 

Lord. 

"  Jonathan,"  Vulgate,  Lord  ; 
Septuagintal  authorities 
divided  between  God, 
Lord,  and  Lord  God. 

Gen.  viii.l5. 

God. 

1  MS.  Lord. 

LXX,  Lord  God. 

Gen.  xvi.  11. 

Lord  2°. 

1  MS.  God. 

LXX,  divided  between 
Lord,  Lord  God,  God. 

Ex.  V.  17. 

To  the  Lord. 

4  MSS.  to 

LXX,    to    our    God,    with 

our  God. 

some  authorltj  for  Lord 
our  God. 

Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


15 


Reff:rf,nce. 

Received 
Text. 

De  Rossi. 

Otheb  Soueces. 

Ex.  vi.  2. 

God. 

2  MSS. 

LOBD. 

1  MS. 
Lord  God. 

Sam.  Lord.     Some  Septua- 
gintal    authority    (i.e.    La- 
garde's    Lueian,    see    post 
3  other  Greek  cursives  in- 
cluding   n,    and    the    Old 
Latin)   for  Lord. 

Kennicott  ^  has  the  following  additional  variants : — 

Reference. 

Received 
Text. 

Kennicott. 

Other   Material. 

Gen.  ii.  22. 

Lord  God. 

1  MS. 
omits  God. 

LXX,  Lord  God,  except  1 
cursive,  which  omits  God. 

Gen.  iii.  1. 

God  2°. 

1  MS. 
Lord  God. 

LXX,  preponderance  of  au- 
thority for  God. 
1    uncial    and    3    cursives 
read  Lord  God. 

Gen.  iii.  22. 

Lord  God. 

1  MS. 
omits  Lord. 

It  is  known  that  the 
LXX  originally  read  God 
only.  Our  present  MSS. 
are,  however,  divided  be- 
tween Lord  God  and  God, 
while  it  is  said,  on  the  au- 
thority of  Holmes,  that 
1  cursive  has  Lord  only. 

Gen.  xxxi. 
53. 

The  God    of 
their  father. 

Omitted 

by  2  MSS. 

Omitted  by  the  original 
LXX. 

There  are  also  extant  some  fragments  of  a  tenth-century 
Karaite  MS.,  and  in  Exodus  iii.  4  these  give  the  reading 
"  Lord  "  for  the  ''  God  "  ^  of  the  Massoretic  text.  The  LXX 
here  also  reads  "  Lord."' 

(2)  A  second  body  of  evidence  —  if  more  be  needed  —  is 
contributed  by  extant  notes  as  to  various  readings  that  have 
come  down  to  us,  showing  that  Septuagintal  readings  were 
supported  by  other  authorities.    Thus  we  read  that  in  Genesis 

^Vetus  Testamentum  Hebraicum,  cum  variis  lectionibus,  edidit  B, 
Kennicott,  Oxford,  1776. 
^R.  Hoerning,  Karaite  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum,  p.  14. 


16  Essays  in  Pentatciichal  Criticism. 

iv.  1,  where  our  text  has  "  Lord,"  the  reading  "  God,"  which 
has  the  unanimous  support  of  our  Septuagintal  authorities, 
was  the  reading-  of  somebody  who  could  be  described  as  "  the 
Hebrew  "  (i.e.  probably  an  unknown  translator  or  commentator 
so  quoted  ^)  and  an  authority  described  as  "  the  Syrian."  ^  In 
iv.  26  the  LXX  has  "  Lord  God,"  and  this  is  supported  by  a  note 
that  "  the  Hebrew  '*'  had  this  reading."  "  In  xxx.  24,  for  the 
Hebrew  "  Lord  "  both  our  Septuagintal  authorities  and  our 
Syriac  have  "  God."  Now  it  is  known  that  the  Septuagint  w^as 
supported  in  this,  not  merely  by  the  Greek  rendering  of  Sym- 
machus,  but  also  by  that  of  Aquila.  Of  this  scholar  very  little 
is  known,  save  that  his  translation  was  distinguished  by  ex- 
treme literalness  and  a  refusal  to  translate  the  Tetragramma- 
ton  at  all.  He  habitually  retained  the  Name  itself,  and  not  in 
Greek  but  in  the  old  Hebrew  character.  Hence  on  this  point 
at  any  rate  no  mistake  is  possible  as  to  the  reading  he  had  be- 
fore him.  Further  he  is  supposed  to  have  been  a  proselyte  to 
Judaism  in  close  touch  with  the  most  authoritative  Jewish 
circles  of  his  day,  so  that  a  reading  of  his  is  extremely  valua- 
ble evidence  as  to  the  best  Jewish  text  of  circa  125-130  of  the 
Christian  era. 

For  these  reasons  it  is  certain  that  the  Versions  do,  at  any 
rate  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  where  they  differ  from  the 
Massoretic  text,  provide  us  with  genuine  Jewish  variant  read- 
ings, and  this  opens  up  the  question  as  to  the  soundness  of 
the  Massoretic  text  with  regard  to  the  appellations  of  God. 

It  is  conceivable  that  in  defense  of  the  higher  critical  theory 

it  may  be  asserted  that  in  all  cases  the  Massoretic  text  is  to  be 

^Field,    Hexapla,  p.  Ixxvii. 

^  See  Field,  Hexapla,  ad  loc,  and  on  "  the  Syrian,"  see  pp.  Ixxvii- 
Ixxxii. 
2  See  Field,  Hexapla,  or  the  larger  Cambridge  Septuagint,  ad  loc. 


Essays  in  Pcntatetichal  Criticism.  17 

preferred.  Coming  from  men  who  never  hesitate  to  invoke  a 
copyist,  harmonist,  or  redactor  to  conjure  away  the  facts  of  the 
Massoretic  text  with  regard  to  the  usage  of  the  two  appella- 
tions when  their  theory  demands  it,  the  argument  would  sound 
rather  strange :  but  consistency  is  as  little  to  be  expected  from 
the  critics  as  accuracy.  Therefore  we  propose  to  meet  this 
argument  by  pointing  to  some  of  the  readings  in  which  for  one 
reason  or  another  the  variant  is  demonstrably  superior  to  the 
Massoretic  text. 

In  Genesis  iv.  1,  "  I  have  gotten  a  man  with  ^  the  Lord  "  is 
impossible,  in  view  of  iv.  26.  The  unanimous  reading  of  the 
LXX,  "  God,"  supported  by  the  note  in  the  Hexapla  attributing 
to  "  the  Hebrew  "  and  ''  the  Syrian  "  a  reading  differing  from, 
the  LXX  only  in  the  pronoun,  is  clearly  preferable.  It  is  notice- 
able that  here  it  is  the  Tetragrammaton  that  has  for  some 
reason  ousted  Elohim  from  the  Hebrew  text,  not  vice  versa. 

Genesis  xvi.  11  is  another  example  of  this.  It  is  certain  that 
the  explanation  of  the  name  Ishmael  cannot  have  contained  the 
Tetragrammaton,  for  in  that  case  the  name  must  have  been 
Ishma-ya/i.  Ishmael,  on  the  other  hand,  is  of  the  type  of 
Isra^/  and  Ftniel,  and,  like  these,  must  have  been  explained  by 
a  sentence  containing  Elohim.  Therefore  the  reading  of  the 
MS.  which  has  preserved  this,  supported  as  it  is  by  the  Luci- 
anic  recension  of  the  LXX  and  the  Old  Latin,  is  certainly 
right. 

Similarly,  in  xxx.  24  the  Tetragrammaton  of  the  Massore- 
tic'text  is  less  probable  than  the  Elohim  of  the  LXX,  Syriac, 
Aquila,  and  Symmachus,  in  view  of  the  Elohim  of  the  preced- 
ing Averse,  and  in  27  the  Elohim  of  the  Syriac  and  LXX  is  at 
least  as  probable  as  the  reading  of  our  present  Hebrew. 

^The  pronoun  is  doubtful,  but  this  is  immaterial  to  the  present 
discussion. 


18  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  at  least  one  instance  in  which 
something  Hke  the  converse  process  has  taken  place.  In  Gene- 
sis xlviii.  15  the  best  MS.  of  the  LXX  has  preserved  a  reading 
which,  on  literary  grounds,  must  be  regarded  as  superior  to  the 
Elohim  of  the  Massoretic  text.  Jacob  gives  a  triple  descrip- 
tion of  Him  whom  he  served,  and  he  does  so  in  terms  that 
necessitate  three  substantives.  Of  these,  the  first  (15a)  is  God 
(Elohim)  and  the  third  is  angel.  In  the  Massoretic  text  the 
second  has  been  replaced  by  God.  But  Codex  B  of  the  Septua- 
gint  has  retained  the  reading  "the  Lord"  (i.e.  probably  not 
the  Tetragrammaton,  but  the  Hebrew  word  lord,  which  is 
applied  here,  as  in  some  other  passages  of  Genesis,  to  God). 
And  this  is  clearly  right. 

Another  class  of  cases  in  which  Septuagintal  readings  are 
demonstrably  superior  to  those  of  the  Massoretic  text  is  af- 
forded by  certain  omissions.  According  to  an  ordinary  princi- 
ple of  textual  criticism  the  shorter  reading  is  to  be  preferred 
in  cases  where  the  addition  involved  by  its  variant  is  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  be  probably  explained  as  being  a  gloss.  It  is  with- 
in the  knowledge  of  everybody  that  there  exist  people  who  will 
write  notes  in  their  books:  and  in  cases  of  MS.  tradition  such 
notes  are  apt  to  get  incorporated  with  the  text  in  later  copies 
of  the  book.  Hence  there  is  usually  a  presumption  in  favor 
of  the  shorter  text. 

In  Genesis  xiv.  22  it  is  for  this  reason  more  probable  that  the 
Tetragrammaton  is  the  addition  of  some  reader  than  that  the 
Syriac  and  almost  all  the  Septuagintal  authorities  should  have 
omitted  the  word  by  accident.  So  in  xv.  2,  where  the  Tetra- 
grammaton (represented  by  the  God  of  the  R.V.)  is  omitted 
by  the  Lucianic  recension  and  many  MSS.  of  the  Septuagint. 
In  xxxi.  42,  "  God  of  my  father  Abraham,"  which  was  un- 
doubtedly the  original  reading  of  the  LXX,  seems  better  than 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  19 

''  God  of  my  father  the  God  of  Abraham  " ;  and  m  xxxi.  53 
"  the  God  of  their  father  "  which  was  omitted  by  the  original 
LXX,  is  an  unmistakable  gloss.  So  is  the  word  "  God  "  in 
Exodus  iii.  1,  which  is  known  to  have  been  missing  in  the  or- 
iginal Septuagintal  text.  This  last  gloss  has  given  endless 
trouble  to  interpreters.  Lastly,  a  number  of  considerations 
combine  to  show  that  in  Genesis  xxviii.  13  the  true  reading  is, 
"  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham  thy  father,"  etc. ;  but,  as  we  shall 
have  to  deal  with  this  passage  later  in  the  discussion,  we  omit 
the  arguments  for  the  present. 

The  above  instances  will  suffice  to  show  that  there  are  cases 
in  which  the  Septuagint  has  preserved  readings  that  are  de- 
monstrably superior  to  those  of  the  Hebrew  text,  though  they 
do  not  exhaust  the  passages  in  which  this  has  happened.  It  has 
also  in  a  number  of  cases  preserved  readings  that  are  demon- 
strably inferior.  But  in  the  great  majority  of  variations  there 
are  no  decisive  criteria ;  for  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  the 
difference  to  the  sense  is  nil  and  to  the  sound  indecisive.  In 
writing  a  history  of  England  during  the  Victorian  age  an 
author  might  use  "  the  Queen  "  and  "  Victoria  "  indifferently 
in  many  cases.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Divine  appellations  in 
Genesis.  Many  of  the  narratives  would  read  just  as  well  with 
the  one  word  as  with  the  other,  and  in  the  great  majority  of 
cases  where  variants  exist  it  can  only  be  said  that  intrinsically 
one  reading  is  as  probable  as  the  other.  It  is,  therefore,  only 
necessary  to  show  that  these  variants  are  extraordinarily 
numerous  to  cut  away  the  ground  from  under  the  feet  of  the 
documentary  critics.  If  it  is  seldom  certain  whether  the  orig- 
inal text  of  Genesis  used  God  or  Lord,  it  cannot  be  argued 
that  the  occurrences  of  these  words  in  the  Massoretic  text 
afford  any  presumption  at  all  as  to  authorship. 


20  Essays  in  Peniateuchal  Criticism. 

The  great  quarry  for  variant  readings  is  the  Septuagint.  But 
in  order  to  use  it  critically  some  sketch  of  its  history  is  neces- 
sary; for  its  fortunes  have  been  very  chequered,  and  the  task 
of  ascertaining  its  true  readings  is  frequently  as  difficult  as  it 
is  fascinating. 

It  is  known  that  in  the  fourth  century  the  Greek-speaking 
Christian  world  was  divided  between  three  recensions  of  the 
Septuagint,  prepared  by  Hesychius,  Lucian,  and  Origen  ^ 
respectively.  If  we  had  these  before  us,  it  would  in  many  cases 
be  possible  to  argue,  from  a  critical  comparison  of  the  three, 
what  the  original  text  of  the  Septuagint  was.  It  is  clear  that 
where  they  all  agreed  their  unanimous  testimony  would  fre- 
quently be  above  suspicion :  where  they  differed,  the  causes  of 
the  deviation  might  often  be  sufficiently  obvious  to  allow  more 
or  less  certain  inferences  as  to  the  original.  This  is  the  more 
probable,  owing  to  the  known  critical  procedure  of  Origen,  one 
of  the  editors.  He  observed  that  there  were  many  instances  in 
which  the  MSS.  of  the  Septuagint  differed  from  the  accepted 
Hebrew  text  of  his  day.  He  concluded  that  in  all  such  cases 
the  Hebrew  was  right  and  the  Septuagint  wrong.  But  the 
position  that  the  Septuagint  had  won  in  the  Christian  world 
was  so  strong  that  it  could  not  be  ousted  by  any  new  transla- 
tion. Accordingly  Origen  decided  to  produce  a  work  which 
should  not  be  limited  to  the  text  of  the  Septuagint,  but  should 
also  supply  the  materials  for  its  correction.  The  result  was  his 
famous  Hexapla.  The  bulk  of  the  work  was  in  six  columns: 
One  gave  the  Hebrew  text  in  Hebrew  characters :  the  second 
contained  a  transliteration  of  the  Hebrew  in  Greek  characters : 
the  remaining  four  were  devoted  to  four  Greek  renderings  — 
those  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  as  well  as  the 

*  In  the  case  of  the  work  of  Origen,  the  edition  in  common  use  was 
prepared  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus  on  the  basis  of  the  Hexapla. 


Essays  in  Penfateuchal  Criticism.  21 

Septuagint.  An  important  feature  of  the  work  was  the  treat- 
ment of  the  latter.  Where  Origen  found  that  words  were 
missing  from  the  Septuagint  which  appeared  in  the  Hebrew,  he 
suppHed  them  from  one  of  the  other  translations ;  but  to  make 
this  clear  he  put  the  insertions  between  an  asterisk  and  another 
sign  called  a  metobel.  For  example,  in  Genesis  ii.  4  he  found 
that  the  Hebrew  had  "  Lord  God,"  while  the  LXX  had  only 
"  God."  In  his  LXX  column  he  therefore  wrote  "  Lord  God," 
with  an  asterisk  before,  and  a  metobel  after,  "  Lord."  This 
would  be  understood  by  his  readers  to  mean  "  The  reading  of 
the  LXX  as  found  by  Origen  is,  God ;  but  the  Hebrew  has 
'  Lord  God,'  and  the  word  '  Lord  '  has  therefore  been  added 
from  another  translation  to  the  original  text  of  the  LXX." 
Similarly,  if  the  LXX  contained  words  that  were  missing  in 
the  Hebrew  he  inserted  critical  signs  (an  obel  followed  by  a 
metobel)  to  show  that  these  words  were  only  to  be  found  in 
the  LXX. 

The  ultimate  result  of  these  labors  was  the  production  of  a 
number  of  MSS.  presenting  hybrid  texts.  Where  Origen's 
recension  was  copied,  his  critical  marks  were  frequently  omit- 
ted. The  three  recensions  —  those  of  Hesychius,  Lucian,  and 
Origen  (i.e.  as  edited  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus)  -^did  not 
remain  absolutely  distinct.  A  MS.  representing  originally  one 
recension  might  be  corrected  from  a  codex  of  another  recen- 
sion, or  indeed  from  another  Greek  translation.  The  result  is 
that  all  our  extant  MSS.  represent  more  or  less  mixed  texts. 
They  frequently  differ  greatly  among  themselves,  and  the  re- 
covery of  the  original  Septuagintal  reading  is  a  task  that  is 
often  difficult  and  sometimes  impossible.  Moreover  it  is  not 
certain  that  these  were  the  only  recensions.  We  have  been 
greatly  struck  by  the  fact  that  a  twelfth-century  cursive  (called 
n  by  the  Cambridge  editors)  frequently  exhibits  a  text  which 


23  Essays  in  Pentatenchal  Criticism. 

entitles  it  to  rank  among  the  authorities  available  for  the  criti- 
cism of  the  Massoretic  text,  and  we  think  it  represents  a  re- 
cension which  is  not  in  the  main  Lucianic  or  Hexaplar.  At- 
tempts have  been  made  to  group  it  with  g  and  (more  recently) 
with  d,  p  and  t.  In  our  judgment  such  attempts  break  down. 
In  its  most  excellent  and  characteristic  readings  in  Genesis  it 
seldom  has  much  MS.  support.  Possibly  it  may  some  day  be 
found  that  it  represents  Hesychius,  though  there  are  other 
candidates.  If  it  does  not,  criticism  will  ultimately  have  to 
concede  a  fourth  important  recension.  Thus  it  is  necessary  to 
take  into  account  all  variants,  and  judge  them  on  their  merits. 

We  are,  however,  not  altogether  without  a  clue  in  this  task. 
The  view  of  Origen  that  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  day  was  nec- 
essarily superior  to  the  LXX  being  extensively  held,  there  was  a 
constant  tendency  to  assimilate  the  Greek  MSS.  to  the  Mas- 
soretic text.  Accordingly  it  will  be  an  equally  constant  princi- 
ple of  Septuagintal  criticism  that  a  reading  which  differs  from 
our  present  Hebrew  is  more  likely  to  be  original  (other  things 
being  equal).  Of  course  even  where  the  original  text  of  the 
LXX  has  been  ascertained,  we  have  the  further  question, 
whether  it  should  or  should  not  be  preferred  to  the  Massoretic 
text ;  but  that  is  a  distinct  question,  which  is  subsequent  to  the 
ascertainment  of  the  Septuagintal  original. 

The  materials  with  which  we  have  to  work  are  as  follows : — 

(1)  Occasional  notices  have  been  preserved  as  to  the  read- 
ings of  the  Hexapla  in  particular  passages :  and  sometimes 
Origen's  critical  signs  have  been  handed  down.  The  great  bulk 
of  these  are  to  be  found  in  Field's  Hexapla,  but  a  little  addi- 
tional material  can  be  obtained  from  the  larger  Cambridge 
Septuagint. 

(2)  It  was  observed  that  certain  readings  which  were 
known  from  other  sources  to  have  been  distinguishing  readings 


Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism.  23 

of  Lucian's  recension  were  exhibited  by  certain  cursive  MSS. 
It  was  therefore  inferred  that  these  MSS.  preserved  the  Luci- 
anic  text  in  a  more  or  less  pure  form,  and  P.  de  Lagarde  under- 
took the  task  of  producing  an  edition  of  "  Lucian."  His  work,^ 
unfortunately,  never  went  beyond  the  first  volume ;  but  that  of 
course  covers  the  books  that  are  important  for  our  present  pur- 
pose and  often  gives  readings  that  are  extremely  valuable.  The 
main  defect  of  the  book  is  the  absence  of  information  as  to  the 
readings  of  the  MSS.  and  other  sources  used  by  Lagarde.  This 
makes  it  impossible  to  control  his  views  as  to  the  original  text. 
It  is  plain  from  the  larger  Cambridge  Septuagint,  which  con- 
tains the  readings  of  some  (but  unfortunately  not  all)  of 
Lagarde's  MSS.,  that  in  the  matter  of  the  designations  of  God 
he  sometimes  had  to  choose  between  different  readings.  He 
has  undoubtedly  chosen  rightly  in  some  instances,  but  who 
shall  say  that  his  judgment  was  never  at  fault? 

(3)     In  addition  to  the  above  information  as  to  special  re- 

^Librorum  Veteris  Testamenti  Canonicorum  Pars  Prior  Graece, 
Gottingen,  1883.  Dahse  has  lately  argued  that  the  MSS.  regarded  as 
Lucianic  are  not  in  fact  the  best  representatives  of  Lucian's  work 
in  Genesis,  and  do  not  contain  a  distinct  recension  (Zeitschrift  fiir 
die  alttestamentliche  Wissenschaft  (1908),  vol.  xxviii.  p.  19).  The 
readings  hereafter  quoted  are  incompatible  with  the  latter  conten- 
tion. Dahse's  reasoning  appears  to  us  extremely  weak,  and  his 
main  ground  for  arguing  that  a  different  group  of  MSS.  (the  f,  i,  r 
of  the  Cambridge  Septuagint)  represents  Lucian  is  a  note  AE  in 
the  margin  of  a  MS.  referring  to  a  reading  in  xix  2.  He  first 
changes  this  to  AE,  and  then  interprets  it  as  Lucian's  edition 
{XovKiavov  EkSoct/s).  That  is  probably  right ;  but  he  has  overlooked 
the  fact  that  Lagarde  has  this  reading  as  the  result  of  an  ex- 
amination of  the  Lucianic  MSS.  Thus  his  only  important  evidence 
that  the  group  f,  i,  r  is  Lucianic  is  not  a  test  that  excludes  the 
bulk  of  the  MSS.  on  which  Lagarde  relied.  Such  a  reading  as  that 
in  Gen.  xvi.  11  proves  beyond  a  peradventure  that  Lagarde's  MSS. 
have  preserved  a  distinct  and  most  valuable  version  where  f,  i,  r  are 
at  fault.  Moreover,  Lagarde  appears  to  have  used  evidence  for  his 
edition  that  has  not  been  employed  by  Dahse. 


24  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

censions,  we  have  a  large  number  of  MSS.  and  translations  from 
the  LXX.  By  far  the  best  edition  of  the  LXX  for  those  who 
have  to  consult  these  is  the  larger  Cambridge  edition,  of  which, 
at  the  time  of  writing,  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  Leviticus  only 
have  appeared.!  It  contains  the  readings  of  all  the  uncials, 
thirty  selected  cursives,  and  the  ancient  Versions  from  the 
Septuagint  that  are  of  textual  importance.  It  also  gives  the 
readings  of  church  fathers  who  quote  the  LXX,  but  these 
are  frequently  valueless  for  our  special  purpose,  and  need 
not  be  considered.  (In  view  of  the  statement  that  the 
Ethiopic  Version  is  a  very  free  translation,  we  shall  not 
generally  quote  this.)  Lastly,  it  reports  some  additional 
readings  of  other  MSS.  given  in  the  earlier  edition  of  Holmes ; 
but,  as  this  book  does  not  enjoy  a  first-rate  reputation  for 
accuracy,  these  readings  can  be  used  only  with  some  reserve. 

After  this  lengthy  introduction  it  is  possible  to  arrive  at  some 
principles  which  may  guide  us  in  the  use  of  the  Septuagintal 
material. 

.  (1)  Where  all  the  available  Septuagintal  authorities  are 
agreed  in  reading  either  "  Lord  "  for  a  Hebrew  "  God  "  or 
"  Lord  God,"  or  in  reading  "  God  "  for  a  Hebrew  "  Lord  "  or 
"  Lord  God,"  we  may  be  certain  that  they  have  preserved  the 
original  reading  of  the  LXX.  ( It  will  presently  appear  that  this 
inference  is  not  equally  certain  where  they  all  agree  on  "  Lord 
God.") 

(2)  Where  the  facts  are  as  in  (1),  save  that  some  of  the 
Septuagintal  authorities  support  the  Hebrew  while  the  variant 
is  supported  by  strong  Septuagintal  authority,  the  variant  will 
be  the  original  reading  of  the  LXX. 

*  The  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  edited  by  Alan  England  Brooke  and 
Norman  McLean,  Vol.  I,  The  Oetateuch,  Part  i.  Genesis,  Cambridge, 
1906,  Part  ii.  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  Cambridge,  1909. 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  25 

(3)  Where  it  is  definitely  known  that  Origen  altered  the 
text  to  bring  it  into  conformity  with  the  Hebrew,  the  unaltered 
text  will  be  the  original  reading,  even  if  all  or  most  of  our 
other  Septuagintal  authorities  support  the  Hebrew. 

(4)  Where  Lucian  alone  has  "  God  "  for  a  Hebrew  "  Lord  " 
or  "  Lord  ''  for  a  Hebrew  "  God,"  his  text  represents  an  orig- 
inal Hebrew  variant;  though  not  necessarily  the  original  text 
of  the  LXX. 

Other  canons  will  emerge  as  the  inquiry  proceeds :  for  the 
present  we  desire  to  exemplify  these  in  a  simple  manner.  In 
the  following  table  we  set  out  those  readings  in  Genesis  ii.-iii. 
for  which  Hexaplar  information  is  available. 


26 


Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 


•  a) 
O  OS  o 

05    2    Q       . 


<1^    ,li 


4J   W 


gOHC       o 


5  S  ^  >  ^  -2 1 

^  T^  .t^  O 


fee  ::i  S^  .2 


^2  i>o 


cc 


g  ^  rt  g  0) 

•  -  ft        -^   (H 
O   ©  ^^   03   OJ 

^.^  CD  a 

Q  ^  -M  ;3  ^ 


o 


lO  A  t- 


"2  ^  -S  ^  ^ 


S   G  P 

g     .9 

a>  K^  w 
W.  ^  u  03 
^^^-^ 


,X1     .    cc 

fe  9  --^ 


^^  9  ^ 

•T:  O     03 

T-1      O  — ( 

-«1 .5  K  M  .2 


ID 

hrt 

1 

^ 

rl 

•4-> 

< 

d 

o 

n 

'd 

c« 

a 

a 

M 

d 

03 

O 

o 

^J 

■w 

o 

id 

u 

r^ 

-a 

rn 

03 

O 

M) 

?!^ 

4^ 

oa 

c3 

oi  bi]  CO 

^•42  a 

I     1 


s 

^ 

Q 

O 

M 

r! 

P? 

^q 

rn 

a 

'O 

a 

9 

^ 

>» 

0) 

fl 

a> 

r/j 

fcj 

;^ 

03 

n 

a 

Z) 

ft 

ft    . 

ft    . 

ft     . 

ft    . 

^3     O^   rc3 

-d  0)  -^ 

'O   O)  T3 

-O   OJ  73 

i 

rS^     O 

OJM  o 

a;a2  5 

^mo 

"d 

=35-5 

|S2 

1-2 

2 

a 

3 

1^ 

rd           -d 

5 

o            p 

5 

-d 

-d 

C                 Q 

'd 

a 

03 

o 

O 

2 

o 
O 

3       S 

o 

O 

3 

fe  M  ^ 

o  w        j^- 

O   H   02   >< 

1^ 

rd            'd 

•d 

'd 

t^  S  S  ^ 

1 

9             o 

P 

3 

Q 

-d 

•d 

a 

a 

H   H 

s 

o 

o 

3       3 

9 

3 

O 

M 

11 

-d 

'd 

'd 

-d           'd 

'd 

'd 

o 

o 

o 

o            o 

o 

o 

O 

O 

O 

O           O 

O 

O 

•aj 

e 

c 

Q 

o            e 

Q 

a 

•^ 

M 

M 

« 

K                 K 

C!h 

» 

f^ 

3 

5 

3- 

3 

2 

o 


13 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  27 

These  comparisons  are  very  instructive.  In  one  of  the  seven 
instances  Origen  appears  to  have  found  "  Lord  God,"  and  this 
is  supported  by  all  our  authorities.  In  the  remaining  six,  what 
he  regarded  as  the  true  Septuagintal  text  had  "  God  "  alone, 
and  he  added  "  Lord  "  to  bring  it  into  conformity  with  the 
Hebrew.  In  one  instance  all  trace  of  the  original  reading  has 
vanished  from  all  our  other  Septuagintal  authorities:  in  the 
other  cases  they  divide,  but  not  on  any  uniform  principle.  On 
three  occasions  Lucian  is  right,  on  two  occasions  the  best  MS. 
In  all  five,  n  has  preserved  the  right  reading.  No  definite  rule 
can  be  laid  down  as  to  the  probable  source  of  the  best  readings. 
It  can  only  be  said  that  no  information  can  be  safely  neglected. 
Consequently  where  the  Hexapla  fails  us  we  must  compare  all 
our  other  information. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  What  do  the  higher  critics  say  to  this? 
Would  they  approve  of  such  methods?  Let  the  following 
facts  be  considered : — 

There  passes,  under  the  name  of  Dr.  S.  R.  Driver,  a  volume 
entitled  "  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  " 
dated  1890.  On  pages  Hi  f.  the  following  passage  will  be 
found : — 

"  But  what  imparts  to  Lucian's  work  its  great  importance  in  tlie 
criticism  of  the  O.T.,  is  the  fact  that  it  embodies  renderings,  not 
found  in  other  MSS.  of  the  LXX,  which  presuppose  a  Hebrew  orig- 
inal self-evidently  superior  in  the  passages  concerned  to  the  existing 
Massoretic  text.  Whether  these  renderings  were  derived  by  him 
from  MSS.  of  the  LXX  of  which  all  other  traces  have  disappeared. 
or  whether  they  were  based  directly  upon  Hebrew  MSS.  which  had 
preserved  the  genuine  reading  intact,  whether  in  other  words  they 
were  derived  mediately  or  immediately  from  the  Hebrew,  is  a  mat- 
ter of  subordinate  moment:  the  fact  remains  that  Lucian's  recen- 
sion contains  elements  resting  ultimately  upon  Hebrew  sources 
which  enable  us  to  correct,  with  absolute  certainty,  corrupt  passages 
of  the  Massoretic  text.  .  .  .  The  full  gain  from  this  quarter  is  in  all 
probability  not  yet  exhausted.  ...  *  Let  him  who  would  himself  in- 
vestigate and  advance  learning,  by  the  side  of  the  other  Ancient  Ver- 


28  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

sions,  accustom  himself  above  all  things  to  the  use  of  Field's  Hexa- 
pla,  and  Lagarde's  edition  of  the  Recension  of  Lucian  '  (Kloster- 
mann)." 

There  also  passes,  under  the  name  of  Dr.  S.  R.  Driver,  a 
volume  entitled  "  The  Book  of  Genesis,  with  Introduction  and 
Notes/'  and  the  first  edition  bears  date  1904  —  i.e.  long  after 
the  volume  on  Samuel.  Naturally  when  we  come  to  ii.  4  we 
find  a  note  on  "  Lord  God."  Has  any  attempt  been  made,  either 
here  or  in  any  other  passage  where  they  throw  light  on  the  ap- 
pellations of  God,  to  use  either  Field's  Hexapla  or  Lagarde's 
Lucian  ?  No.  Instead,  we  read,  "  It  is  usually  supposed  that 
in  ii.  4b-iii.  24  the  original  author  wrote  simply  Lord:  and 
that  God  was  added  by  the  compiler,  with  the  object  of  identi- 
fying expressly  the  Author  of  life  of  ii.  4b-25  with  the  Creator 
of  ch.  1."  Would  Dr.  Driver  (and  when  we  say  Dr.  Driver  we 
include  the  author  or  authors,  source  or  sources,  redactor  or 
redactors,  if  any,  of  this  note)  have  supposed  anything  of  the 
kind,  if  he  had  been  aware  that  the  LXX  here  read  "  God  " 
only  at  a  date  long  subsequent  to  that  of  the  supposititious 
compiler  ? 

In  Mr.  Carpenter's  Hexateuch  there  is  a  note  on  the  passage 
in  which  the  "  God  "  of  the  Hebrew  text  is  assigned  to  the 
compiler,  and  we  read  that  "  Klostermann  has  suggested  that 
it  was  an  instruction  to  the  reader,  when  i  1-iii  24  was  regarded 
as  one  section,  to  pronounce  the  same  divine  name  (Elohim) 
throughout."  Klostermann  is  the  author  of  the  impressive  ex- 
hortation quoted  in  the  *'  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the 
Books  of  Samuel,"  "  above  all  things  "  to  use  Field's  Hexapla 
and  Lagarde'.s  Lucian.  Why  do  not  the  higher  critics  practise 
what  they  preach? 

The  evidence  as  to  the  remaining  cases  in  ii.  and  iii.  where 
the  Massoretic  text  has  "  Lord  God  "  is  as  follows : — 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  29 


o  o 

O   P   O         O  _-•  Q   C 

o  o  q       o  o  q  5 


S3 

O 


tj        'O        f^  'O  'O  ^3        '^3  'O  "Q  'C 

©oo  ooo©  o  oo 

O      O      O  OOO      O  O  OO 

O              OQOO  O                    OOOO  O  QO 

O         ^     ^q     ^qo  O              »-:i^:i^:)     ^J  t-^  kJ  ^J 


02  cH 


'S  'C       'C!       'd -rs  T3  -Id -O 'O       r^            'C                  ro  »« 

®  OOOO  o  OOOO           o               oo 

O  O      O      oo  O  OOO      O          O              OO 

Q  ooao  a  QOOQ 

«  P5«M«  M  P5«P5« 


S>Si        3         333    3      3         33 


S    Sg        d         ^S* 


p 

p 

P3 

p  P 

OJ 

(U 

cu 

0)  a? 

O 

o 

O 

OO 

p  pppp  p  pp 

o  OOOO       o  oo 


The  evidence  is  absolutely  clear  as  to  ii.  9,  19,  21,  and  iii.  13. 
In  these  cases  the  original  LXX  had  God  only.  It  would  be 
premature  to  express  any  opinion  on  the  other  variants  before 
considering  the  independent  support  that  Septuagintal  readings 
with    very    slight    authority     sometimes     obtain    from    other 


30  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

sources,  but  for  those  who  know  how  often  n  alone  preserves 
a  text  that  is  superior  to  that  of  all  other  Septuagintal  author- 
ities, there  can  be  very  little  doubt  about  iii.  8  2°. 

On  pages  31-35  we  give  a  select  list  of  variant  readings 
from  Genesis  iv.  onwards: — 

Probably  few  will  doubt  that  in  the  great  majority  of  the 
passages  cited  in  this  table  the  LXX  originally  had  a  read- 
ing that  differed  from  our  present  Massoretic  text.  But  there 
is  other  material  which  can  be  utilized.  We  have  seen  that  in 
one  passage  an  addition  that  is  known  to  have  been  made  by 
Origen  has  been  embodied  in  all  our  authorities.  We  have  also 
seen  enough  to  show  that  no  certain  rule  can  be  laid  down  as 
to  what  authorities  will  contain  variants.  It  is  always  possible 
that  one  or  more  MSS.  will  detach  themselves  from  the  general 
body  and  present  a  reading  that  is  independent  of  that  of  most  of 
their  compeers.  Moreover  there  are  an  enormous  number  of 
passages  where  "  Lord  God  "  is  evidently  a  "  conflate  "  reading, 
i.e.  a  reading  that  has  been  produced  by  the  amalgamation  of 
two  readings  "Lord"  and  "  God."  Sometimes  both  these  earlier 
readings  are  found  in  Septuagintal  authorities :  sometimes  one 
is  represented  only  by  the  Massoretic  text  or  some  other  wit- 
ness: sometimes  a  conflate  Septuagintal  reading  is  repre- 
sented by  two  other  readings  in  extant  sources.  In  these  cir- 
cumstances we  are  of  opinion  that  two  other  canons  may  be 
framed  for  dealing  with  the  Septuagintal  evidence  as  to  the 
D*ivine  appellations. 

(5)  A  reading  that  has  very  little  Septuagintal  authority 
often  represents  an  original  Hebrew  variant. 

(6)  A  conflate  Septuagintal  reading  frequently  goes  back 
to  varying  Hebrew  readings  sometimes  through  a  conflate  He- 
brew text.    The  process  of  mixing  two  readings  had  sometimes 


Essays  in  Pentatenchal  Criticism. 


31 


C5    (D 


.2    fl  w 

"^    =S  «  . 

S    fl  ^  M 

3  ,  S 


go 

03  ^ 

S3  a 


o 

_  o 


5    3 


-d  .>; 

O      02 


§     ^    S^^ 


w   O 

b  2 


2   ^ 


ti  ?? 


OJ  -M 


O     P 

__    o 


o  a 


>  a 

d 


o 

o  __ 

'cc  o  d 


•13 


d  H  OQ 

C3 


«|g 


d  -M 

03   jp    »*  cu 

d  •--<   d  "• 
d  2  "-a 

T-1       O     wO 


^5 

O   >7 


h-i  t:  rh  Si  o  ^  -t* 


d 

•r-  jd  'O  c3  d  TS 

^  +^  d  §  >.  d 

K  ^  CO  03 


O:: 


•<1  o 


'6 
o 


o   o 


c 


'd  -a 
o   o 


O   X 
02    W 

CO  H 


C     D 

«     OS 

.9  .9 


o 

' 

o 

(N 

CO 

'* 

03 

tH 

:d 

t- 

^ 

> 

> 

> 

> 

*> 

*> 

> 

a 

d 

d 

d 

d 

a 

d 

<ii 

a; 

(D 

0) 

OJ 

<u 

OP 

O 

O 

o 

O 

O 

C3 

O 

32 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


-a 
o 
O 


Oi         'So 
>         •-<  rh  •« 

u      x:     n 
■*->         o    ^  a    rj 

JD  <1>      P  Q   ^      fl 


^.b 


5;      W 


to     3    w 


cs 


'"  o 

-go 

§  P 

O   ^    ^ 


o  o 

in 


'dgp 


ft -=3 


OQ 


.aj   ^  rH  ^  ^ 
-M  -H  '^    >  +-' 


'O 


O 


Ss^ 


-« 


O   Oi 

O)   P 
-t-> 


a  p 


P3  SR 

S  g  d 

^^    P      P 

d      .P    o 


cj 

s 

PC5 

(U 

a 

;-i 

Ul 

-^ 

OJ 

<D 

^ 

■t-i 

p^ 

-d 

oi 

p 

Oj 

0 

3 

f« 

M 

a 

re       -P       -C 

o  e  o 


';=     'p 
o      ® 


fp  -o 
o   o 


o 


'p    -p    <«       'p 
000       o 

000     O 


_:  Q 

^3  o 

•g  -p 

O  2. 


ro   "p 
O    O 

O  O 


o  X 

r 


o  Q  e 
^  »  » 
000 
w3   ^J   w:? 


0 

. 

K 

0 

(N 

M 

0 

0 

CO 

-* 

(M' 

w 

CD 

r-t 

tH 

1—1 

<M 

(N* 

•** 

CD    l^- 

w 

> 

M* 

'P 

r« 

:p 

;P 

;P 

> 

> 

t>     P> 

M 

>< 

M 

M 

t^ 

M 

y-^ 

>i 

f^ 

M    ^ 

P 

P 

p 

p 

P 

P 

3 

P 

P 

f=5   ? 

0) 

a> 

a» 

a; 

(D 

a> 

Oi 

Oi 

Oi 

<D     a; 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

c 

0    0 

Essays  in  Pentatenchal  Criticism.  33 


oil  ^P:iri^i  ^-ri»-'4^'ii 

-m'^S  l'M'§g-§:^g^^5      S^  ^^.2 '^^S  ^o„ 


^i 

(^  E^ 
d  < 

QQ 

i_i 

H    ^ 

d 

u 

a 

o  p 

, 

^^ 

s 

•d  13 

•     Q 
fQ      (55 

•o 

3 

o   o 

S5 

o 

H         ^ 

1^* 

odM 

S-^ 

«^ 

g| 

S|. 

'd 

-d   § 

'C  -d 

g 

I§l§ 

o 

o 

53 

O  O 

3 

^353 

o 

5i 

QQ  H 

dfi 

:< 

a 

d    Q 

d   d 

. 

§1J       d 

S 

M 

«     M 

«     M 

'CJ 

^  ®      « 

^-i 

a 

35 

23 

O 

^g    3 

5  5^        ^ 


>  >  > 

d  d   d 


>   >■ 

M 

x' 

H 

H 

H 

H 

d  d 

a 

d 

gj 

V     4) 

0) 

0) 

s 

o  o 

O 

O 

o 

34 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


o  o 

a  0) 


^  c3  O 
O 


M 


s  s^ 


«  9  S 


so     ^ 
coSS 


8o 


^2 

OS  O 


.2  •* 
'3  ... 


.^^  d'^ 
"      I 

^d^ 

<M  S      • 

o  d  5  fcc 


be 


(^ 


is 


IS 


a;  o 

Is 

^^ 


d.-S 


tLj  ID    o 

r'S  ■g  a  &  « 


a=5?3 


m^  o 

OS  p 


CO    M 


p  o 
OO 


d 

02  b 

d 


^5 


'd 
E  d 

<D   bo 
03  T* 

l-H  O 


a  3 


o 


o    o 


oJXI 
o 


^    a 
o    o 


o 

M 

O  M 

DQ    W 

met 


5 


5    3 


OS  03        'd  P        M 


o  o 
;d 


, 

(N 

o 

o 

CO 

r-t 

.fS 

> 

> 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

W 

d 

p 

d 

(i> 

4> 

« 

O 

o 

O 

^ 

^' 

^ 

^ 

^ 

X 

« 

\i 

M 

H 

H 

M 

M 

H 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

^ 

d 

d 

q* 

d 

<D 

a> 

a> 

O 

0) 

o 

O 

O 

C5 

O 

Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


35 


I  .  2 


o  .. 

05 

<D   ^   O 

^  «o 
•^■^^ 

fl  o  5 

CO  a 


03 

o 

^  a 

'"2    TO 

O  P 


02  5 


CO  P 


■so    ^ 


"<1  "33  oi 


03 


3  : 


>j'"y  -  - 

=  P  fl  tn 
75  Jj -S  O) 

'C  S  'd  *^ 


.1-.  CO   S   02 
P    •  ►  M    a  rrt 

<^'d  ^       o 


W 


^   P  rd 

frH     O     o 

GO  o 


•*-•       a> 

a  CD  p 

>^  P&o 


o 

O 

CO 

^3 

HJ3 

'd 

Q 

^ 

O 

re        ro 
O         O 


OQ   ffi 


a> 
CQ  P  a> 


•O  'O  'O 

O  O  5:^ 

o       o       ^ 


o 


S3     ,j 


c^ 


36 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


been  performed  in  the  Hebrew  originals  from  which  the  LXX 
was  translated. 

The  following  table  shows  a  number  of  cases  where  Septua- 
gintal  variants  with  very  little  authority  are  supported  by  ex- 
tant variants  either  in  Kennicott's  collations  or  in  the  Samari- 
tan Pentateuch  of  Blayney's  edition. 


Refebence. 


Gen.  ii.  18. 

Gen.  ii.21. 
Gen.  ii.  22. 
Gen.  iii.  1. 

Gen.  iii.  22. 

G^n.  iii.  23. 
Gen.  V.  22. 
Gen.  vi.  5. 


Gen.  vii.  1. 


Gen.  vii.  9. 


Massoretic 
Text. 


Lord  God. 

Lord  God. 
Lord  God. 
God  2^ 

Lord  God. 

Lord  God. 
With  God. 
Lord. 


Gen.  vi.  13.        God. 


Lord. 


God. 


Variants. 


1  MS.  omits 
God ;  1  MS. 
omits  Lord. 

2  MSS.  omit 
God. 

1  MS.  omits 
God. 

IMS. 
Lord  God. 

1  MS.  omits 
Lord. 


1  MS.  omits 

God. 

1  MS.  omits. 

1  MS.  God. 


1  MS.  Lord 
( in  abbre- 
viated form 
JH)   God. 

2  MSS.^ 
and  Sam. 
God. 

IMS. 
and  Sam. 
Lord. 


Septuagintal  Evidence. 


2    cursives     (e,    Ca)     omit 
Lord. 


1  cursive   (li)   reads  Lord. 


1  cursive  (y)  omits  God. 


1  uncial  (E),  3  cursives, 
Lord  God;  1  cursive  of 
Holmes,  Lord  only. 

Lord  omitted  by  1  un- 
cial (M),  numerous  cur- 
sives and  Palestinian  Ara- 
maic. It  is  known  to  have 
been  added  here  by  Origen. 

1  cursive   (b)   omits  God. 

1  cursive  of  Holmes  omits. 
There  are  other  variants. 

Lord  God.  1  cursive  of 
Holmes,  God. 

1  uncial  (D),  14  cursives 
Armenian,  Sahidic,  Syr- 
iac,  Lord  God;  1  cursive 
(n),  Lord. 

Lord  God.  2  cursives  (c, 
vv)  (with  some  Armen- 
ian support),  God;  1  cur- 
sive (k),  Lord. 

1  uncial  (M),  4  cursives, 
Armenian,  and  Bohairic, 
Lord  God;  1  uncial  (E) 
Lord. 


»See  Kennicott,  ad  loc.;  also  his  addenda  on  page  119. 


Ess:ays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


37 


Reference. 


Gen.  vii.  16. 

Gen.  XV.  2. 

Gen.  XV.  8. 

Gen.  xvii.  15. 

Gen.  xviii.  33. 
Gen.  xix.  29. 

Gen.  xxviii.  4. 

Gen.  xxx.  22. 

Gen.  xxxv.  9. 
Gen.  xxxv.  10. 


Massoretic 
Text. 


God. 

lord  God. 

Lord  God. 

God. 

Lord. 
God  1°. 

God. 

God  2°. 

God  l^ 
God. 


Variants. 


1  MS.  Lord. 


3MSS. 
Lord  God; 
1  MS.  God. 


3  MSS.^ 
Lord  God; 
2MSS. 
God  only. 

1  MS.  Lord. 

1  M'S.  omits. 
1  MS.  Lord. 


Sam.  Lord. 

2  MSS. 
omit. 

1  MS.  omits. 

1  MS.  God 

Lord. 

1  MS.  omits. 


Septuagintal  Evidence. 


1  uncial  (E)  and  about 
13  cursives,  Lord  God;  2 
uncials  (D,  M),  Bohairic, 
with  some  Sahidic  support, 
Lord. 

1     cursive     (a),  Sahidic, 

Tetragrammaton  only. 

Much  authority  for  lord 
only. 

Sahidic,  Lord  God;  2  cur- 
sives (b,  w)  lord,  God, 
God. 


2  cursives  (b  dj),  Lord 
God;  Latin,  Lord. 

1  cursive  (Cj)  omits. 

Lord,  9  cursives,  Pales- 
tinian, God.  1  uncial  (E) 
omits  altogether. 

1  uncial  (E),  1  cursive 
(f),  Lord  God. 

2  cursives  (e,  n),  omit; 
Latin,  Lord  God. 

1  cursive  (b)  omits. 

Ordinary  reading,  God ; 
but  D,  5  cursives,  and  the 
Sahidic  omit. 


These  coincidences  are  too  numerous  to  be  due  to  chance,  and 
it  must  be  admitted  that  in  every  case  where  any  Septuagintal 
aVithority  presents  a  reading  that  differs  from  the  Massoretic 
text  without  any  reason  for  supposing  that  the  variant  origi- 
nated in  the  Greek,  there  is  prima-facie  evidence  for  suspecting 
that  a  Hebrew  variant  once  existed.^    Readings,  whether  He- 

^  See  Kennicott,  ad  loc;  also  his  addenda  on  page  119. 

*  It  may  be  remarked  that  there  are  also  variants  evidenced  by 
the  Samaritan,  the  Syriac,  or  a  Hebrew  source  in  cases  where  the 
LXX  supports  the  Massoretic  text,  e.g.  xxii.  15  (RJe),  M.  T.  Lord, 
Syr.  God;  xxxi.  7  (E)  M.  T.  God,  Sam.  Lord;  9  (E)  M.  T.  God,  Sam. 


38 


Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 


brew  or  Greek,  showing  "  Lord  God,"  naturally  rouse  the  sus- 
picion that  they  are  conflate,  and  that  at  one  period  two  He- 
brew readings  were  extant,  one  having  "  Lord  "  and  the  other 
"  God,"  though,  owing  to  the  abbreviations  used  in  both  lan- 
guages, they  may  sometimes  be  due  to  dittography/  We  think 
that  the  tables  we  have  already  printed  are  amply  sufficient  to 
dispose  of  the  higher  critical  case  on  the  appellations  of  God; 
but,  in  order  to  make  it  quite  clear  how  frequently  the  reading 
is  precarious,  we  propose  to  print  all  the  variants  of  any  conse- 
quence in  a  couple  of  selected  passages.  The  higher  critics 
hold  that  J  and  E  are  not  always  distinguishable  from  each 
other:  but  P  is  said  to  possess  such  well-marked  characteris- 
tics that  doubt  is  seldom  possible  as  to  his  authorship.  Accord- 
ingly we  begin  with  Genesis  vi.  9-xi.  17  —  the  story  of  the 
flood.  In  giving  the  Septuagintal  evidence  we  in  all  cases  set 
out  the  reading  of  the  best  MS.  first. 


Reference. 

SOUBCE. 

Massoeetic 
Text 

Septuagint. 

Gen.  vl.  11. 

P. 

God. 

God;  about  4  cursives 
and  tlie  Sahidie,  Lord  God. 

Gen.  vi.  12. 

P. 

God. 

Lord  God;  2  cursives, 
God;  1  cursive,  Lord. 

Gen.  vi.  13. 

P. 

God. 

God;  1  uncial,  about  14 
cursives,  Armenian,  Sahid- 
ie, and  Syro-hexaplar  Lord 
God;  1  cursive  (n)  Lord 
(as  before  stated  there  is 
a  Hebrew  variant,  Lord 
God). 

Gen.  vi.  22. 

P. 

God. 

Lord  God;  1  uncial,  about 
16  cursives  (including  n) 
and  the  Palestinian,  God. 

and  1  Heb.  MS.  Lord;  16  (E)  M.T.  God  1**,  Sam.  Lord;  M.T.  God 2% 
Syr.  Lord;  xlv.  5   (E)  M.  T.  God,  2  MSS.  Lord;  7  (E)  M.  T.  God, 
2  MSS.  Lord.     The  MSS.  are  Kennlcott's. 
^Again  glosses  may  be  responsible  in  some  passages. 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


39 


Refebence. 


Gen.  vii.  1. 

GTen.  vii.  5. 
Gen.  vii.  9. 


Gen.  vii.  16a. 


SOUBCE. 


Gen.  vii.  16b. 

Gen.  viii.  15. 
Gen.  viii.  20. 


Gen.  viii.  21a. 

Gen.  viii.  21b. 

Gen.  ix.  1. 
Gen.  ix.  8. 


Gen.  ix.  12. 
Gen.  ix.  17. 


Massobetic 
Text. 


LOBD. 
LOBD. 

God. 


God. 


P. 
J. 


J. 

P. 
P. 

P. 
P. 


LOBD. 

God. 

LOBD. 


LOBD. 
LOBD. 

God. 
God. 


God. 
God. 


Septuagint. 


Lord  God;  2  cursives  and 
some  MSS.  of  tbe  Armen- 
ian, God;  1  cursive,  Lobd 
(as  stated  before,  there  is 
Samaritan,  Syriac,  and  He- 
brew evidence  for  God). 
LoED  God;  1  cursive,  God; 
1  cursive  and  the  Sahidic, 
Lord. 

God;  1  uncial,  about  4 
cursives,  the  Armenian  and 
Bohairic,  Lobd  God;  1  un- 
cial, Lord  (as  stated  be- 
fore there  is  Samaritan, 
Latin  (Vulgate),  and  He- 
brew evidence  for  Lobd). 
God;  1  uncial  and  about 
13  cursives,  Lobd  God;  2 
uncials,  the  Bohairic,  and 
some  evidence  from  the 
Sahidic,  Lord  (as  already 
stated  there  is  Hebrew  evi- 
dence for  Lobd). 
Lobd  God;  1  uncial,  God; 
Bohairic,  Lobd. 
Lobd  God. 

God;  2  cursives  (f,  n) 
and  Sahidic,  Lobd  God; 
1  uncial  and  about  14  cur- 
sives, Lobd. 

Lobd  God;  Origen  obe- 
lized God.  It  is  omitted 
by  1  uncial  and  about  5 
cursives. 

Lobd    God;    Sahidic,    God. 
Origen    found    Lobd    God 
and  obelized  God. 
God;    2   cursives   and   the 
Sahidic,   Lobd  God. 
God;     1    uncial,    about    4 
cursives,  Armenian  and  Sa- 
hidic,   Lobd   God;    one   of 
these  cursives    (f)    origin- 
ally had  Lobd  only. 
Lobd  God;   1  uncial,  God. 
1  cursive,  Lobd. 

God;  1  uncial,  about  <» 
cursives,  and  some  Armen- 
ian MSS.  Lobd  God;  1 
cursive,  Lobd. 


40 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


The  only  subsequent  passages  of  any  length  assigned  to  P 
are  chapters  xvii.  and  xxiii.  The  latter  does  not  contain  any 
Divine  appellation.  The  variants  of  any  consequence  in  the 
former  are  as  follows: —   - 


ReJB'IiJKENCE. 

Source. 

Massobetic 
Text. 

Septuagint. 

Gen.  xvii.  la. 
Gen.  xvii.  15. 

Gen.  xvii.  18. 
Gen.  xvii.  19. 

P. 
P. 

P. 
P. 

LOED. 

God. 

Notliing. 
God. 

Lord;    1    cursive    and    the 
Armenian,  Lord  God. 

God;     2     cursives,     Lord 
God;  Old  Latin,  Lord   (as 
already  stated  there  is  He- 
brew evidence  for  Lord). 

1    cursive    adds    Lord    at 
the  end  of  the  verse. 

God;  1  cursive.  Lord. 

When  to  these  are  added  the  variants  that  have  already 
been  set  out  in  other  passages  of  P  where  any  Divine  appella- 
tion is  used  (Gen.  xix.  29;  xxi.  2,  4;  xxviii.  4;  xxxv.  10),  it 
will  be  seen  that  for  sheer  worthlessness  as  a  test  of  author- 
ship the  use  of  the  Divine  appellations  by  the  Massoretic  text 
would  be  difficult  to  surpass. 

With  regard  to  J  and  E  the  facts  are  of  course  similar. 
While  the  witnesses  are  not  unanimous,  the  preponderance  of 
evidence  certainly  favors  Elohim  alone  as  the  original  reading 
of  Genesis  ii.,  iii. ;  and.  on  the  whole  iv.  26  is  favorable  to  this 
conclusion.  It  is  true  that  there  are  a  number  of  Hebrew  vari- 
ants in  these  chapters  giving  the  reading  "  Lord  "  only.  Of 
these  we  can  say  only,  that  they  do  not  seem  to  have  been  re- 
garded as  the  best  reading  by  any  well-recognized  Hebrew 
authority.  But  with  this  matter  we  are  not  here  concerned. 
Our  business  is  not  to  produce  a  critical  edition  of  the  Hebrew 
text  of  Genesis  but  to  test  the  critical  theory.  In  so  far  as  that 
depends  on  the  usage  of  the  appellations  of  God  in  Genesis  we 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  41 

submit  that  we  have  accomplished  our  task  when  we  have 
proved  that  in  some  cases  the  Massoretic  text  is  demonstrably 
wrong,  and  in  an  enormous  proportion  of  other  cases  quite  un- 
certain.^ 

'  4.  In  the  passage  quoted  above,  Mr.  Carpenter  claims  that 
"  the  distinction  which  Astruc  adopted  has  the  direct  sanction 
of  the  Pentateuch  itself."  What  Pentateuch?  The  answer 
can  only  be  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  supported  by  the  Mas- 
soretic recension  of  the  Jewish  Pentateuch.  But  not  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  Jewish  Pentateuch  of  Septuagint  or  Onkelos  or 
Peshitto  or  Vulgate.  In  the  crucial  passage  (Ex.  vi.  3)  these 
authorities  all  support  a  reading  that  has  been  preserved  in  a 
tenth-century  Karaite  MS.^  It  differs  from  the  Massoretic 
reading  only  in  a  single  letter.  At  first  sight  it  appears  to 
differ  imperceptibly  in  sense,  but  we  shall  see  that  when  the 
comparative  method  is  brought  to  bear  the  difference  turns  out 
to  be  enormous.  For  ^nvilJ  "  I  was  known,"  it  has,  "Tiyiin 
"  I  made  known,"  which  is  even  more  hke  the  Massoretic  text 
when  both  are  written  in  the  old  Hebrew  than  in  the  square 
characters.  In  the  result  the  LXX,  at  any  rate,  presents  an  abso- 
lutely consistent  text,  for  in  the  two  passages  of  Genesis  (xv.  7 

^  The  enormous  number  of  variations  suggests  ttiat  Genesis  must 
liave  been  current  in  more  than  one  form.  Either  owing  to  some 
palaeographical  peculiarity,  or  some  religious  or  other  theory,  or 
through  some  other  cause,  the  Divine  appeflations  varied.  A  num- 
ber of  ancient  variants  are  due  to  the  fact  that  ^  was  often  regard- 
ed as  an  abbreviation  for  the  Tetragrammaton.  We  quote  the  fol- 
lowing from  Dr.  Redpath :  "  There  is  no  doubt,  I  think,  that  before 
the  time  when  so  much  attention  was  directed  to  the  accuracy,  let- 
ter for  letter,  of  the  Hebrew  canonical  Scriptures,  a  considerable 
amount  of  abbreviation  of  words  was  used  in  their  reproduction. 
There  are  frequent  indications  of  this  in  the  LXX;  but  I  need  not 
go  into  that  now.  What  more  concerns  us,  however,  is  the  fact  that 
the  Hebrew  fragments  of  Ecclesiasticus  show  that  two  or  three 
forms  of  abbreviation  were  used  for  the  Tetragrammaton ;  and,  if 

*R.  Hoerning,  Karaite  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum,  p.  17. 


42  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

and  xxviii.  13)  where  God  appears  to  a  patriarch  and  uses  the 
Tetragrammaton  in  a  self-revelation  the  Greek  has  "  God." 
The  form  of  the  Hebrew  sentence  is  also  favorable  to  this  read- 
ing —  so  much  so  that  Kittel  wishes  to  alter  "  My  Name  "  to 
"  by  My  Name  "  which  would  go  better  with  "  I  was  not 
known."  Surely  a  reading  with  so  much  authority  involving 
so  slight  a  departure  from  the  received  text  of  the  Hebrew  de- 
serves some  consideration  before  Genesis  is  split  up  under  the 
sanction  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  and  the  Massoretic  text. 
5.  While  our  book  of  Genesis  was  assuredly  based  —  at  any 
rate  in  part  —  on  preexisting  sources,  the  division  into  J,  E 
and  P  does  not  meet  the  facts  of  the  case.  Nobody  in  his  right 
senses  ever  supposed  that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  sat 
down  and  invented  all  the  statements  made  in  the  book  of 
Genesis.  He  used  preexisting  material,  and  it  is  even  possible 
that  the  critics  have  really  detected  some  glosses  and  (very  oc- 
casionally) some  points  where  different  traditions  join.  But 
any  services  they  may  have  rendered  in  these  directions  are 
more  than  outweighed  by  the  crass  absurdities  they  have  put 
forward  and  by  their  failure  to  account  for  the  evidence  of  pre- 
Mosaic  date.  We  may  take,  as  an  example,  Genesis  x.  19,  where 

some  similar  form  of  abbreviation  were  used  for  the  name  Elohim, 
it  is  easy  to  see  how  constantly  confusion  might  arise  between  the 
two  names,  in  badly  written  or  partly  perished  codices"  (American 
Journal  of  Theology,  vol.  viii.  p.  293).  The  duplicate  psalms  and  the 
variations  between  Kings  and  Chronicles  afford  parallels  for  varia- 
tions in  the  Divine  appellations.  It  may  reasonably  be  held  that,  in 
the  entire  absence  of  evidence,  the  reading  of  the  Massoretic  text 
should  be  preferred  in  most  cases,  other  things  being  equal,  the  pre- 
sumption being  that  the  Jewish  view,  which  ultimately  prevailed, 
was  on  the  whole  sounder  than  any  which  did  not  ultimately  prevail. 
It  may  also  be  added  that  the  difficulty  of  forming  an  opinion  is  due 
to  the  supreme  unimportance  of  the  subject.  The  difference  between 
the  two  appellations  so  seldom  makes  any  appreciable  difference  to 
the  text  that  all  criteria  fail. 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  43 

the  border  of  the  Canaanite  is  fixed  with  the  words,  "  as  thou 
goest  toward  Sodom,  and  Gomorrah,  and  Admah,  and  Ze- 
boiim." 

The  places  named  were  destroyed  in  Abraham's  lifetime.  It  fol- 
lows that  this  passage  must  have  been  originally  composed  before  the 
catastrophe  narrated  in  Gen.  xix.  Mr.  Carpenter  attributes  it,  how- 
ever, to  a  late  stratum  of  "  J  "  making  it  subsequent  to  xiii  10,  which 
was  obviously  composed  after  the  destruction  of  Sodom.  Dr.  Driver 
assigns  the  passage  to  J  and  writes : 

"  Nor  does  the  language  of  *  J  *  and  *  E '  bring  us  to  any  more 
definite  conclusion.  Both  belong  to  the  golden  period  of  Hebrew 
literature.  They  resemble  the  best  parts  of  Judges  and  Samuel 
(much  of  which  cannot  be  greatly  later  than  David's  own  time)  : 
but  whether  they  are  actually  earlier  or  later  than  these,  the  lan- 
guage and  style  do  not  enable  us  to  say.  .  .  .  All  things  considered, 
both  J  and  E  may  be  assigned  with  the  greatest  probability  to  the 
early  centuries  of  the  monarchy "  ( "  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment," sixth  edition,  pp.  124-125). 

In  other  words,  Dr.  Driver  would  on  "  literary  "  grounds  be  pre- 
pared to  accept  a  date  1,000  years  after  the  age  of  Abraham  as  the 
time  of  composition  of  this  passage.  What  precisely  is  the  value  of 
a  method  which  does  not  permit  its  ablest  and  most  cautious  expo- 
nent to  arrive  at  results  that  are  correct  to  within  1,000  years? 
[The  Churchman  (London),  February,  1908,  p.  95.] 

Precisely  the  same  tale  is  told  by  the  legal  evidence  in  Gene- 
sis, which  repeatedly  attests  the  superior  antiquity  of  the 
stories  in  Genesis  to  the  laws  of  Exodus-Deuteronomy.^  For 
example,  the  law  of  homicide  contained  in  Genesis  ix.  (P)  is 
demonstrably  earlier  than  that  of  Exodus  xxi.  (E).  The  criti- 
cal scheme  does  not  and  cannot  account  for  such  facts  as  these. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  of  the  divisions,  even  when  not 

based  on  the  appellations  of  the  Deity,  are  as  absurd  as  they 

can  possibly  be.     Here  is  the  scheme  of  the  composition  of 

Genesis  xxxiv.  25  as  believed  by  Dr.  Driver : — 

P:    And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  third  day,  when  they  were  sore, 

that 
J:    two  of 

*gee  the  Churchman   (London),  January,  1908,  pp.  15-23. 


44  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

P:    the  sons  of  Jacob, 
J :     Simeon  and  Levi,  Dinah's  brethren, 

P :    tooli  each  man  his  sword,  and  came  upon  the  city  unawares, 
and  slew  all  the  males. 

And  where  the  critics  cannot  effect  their  purpose  even  by 
such  divisions  as  these,  they  have  recourse  to  the  familiar 
machinery  of  redactors,  harmonists,  and  glossators  to  conjure 
away  inconvenient  facts. 

To  sum  up :  the  famous  clue  provided  by  Exodus  vi.  3  lead- 
ing- to  the  division  of  the  earlier  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  in- 
to three  self-consistent  documents,  J,  E,  and  P,  of  which  J 
uses  the  Tetragrammaton  while  E  and  P  do  not,  breaks  down 
for  five  different  reasons :  First,  no  such  division  can  in  fact 
be  effected.  Secondly,  in  so  far  as  it  is  effected,  it  postulates  a 
series  of  redactors  whose  alleged  proceedings  are  unintelligible 
and  inconceivable.  Thirdly,  in  an  enormous  proportion  of 
cases  no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  the  readings  of  the  Massore- 
tic  text  with  regard  to  the  Divine  appellations.  Fourthly,  the 
reading  adopted  by  the  higher  critics  in  Exodus  vi.  3  is  almost 
certainly  wrong.  Fifthly,  the  documentary  theory  founded  on 
this  "  clue"  does  not  account  for  the  frequent  traces  of  pre- 
Mosaic  date,  and  postulates  the  most  ludicrous  divisions  even 
where  nothing  turns  on  the  appellations  of  the  Deity. 

It  only  remains  to  solve  the  difficulty  presented  by  Exodus 
vi.  3  and  the  kindred  passages. 

As  already  explained,  there  is  an  alternative  reading,  differ- 
ing from  the  Massoretic  text  only  in  a  single  letter,  according 
to  which  God  says,"  I  am  the  Lord  :  and  I  appeared  unto 
Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  as  El  Shaddai,  but  my 
Name  the  Lord  I  made  not  known  unto  them."  This  was  re- 
garded as  the  true  reading  by  the  best  Jewish  authorities  of 
many  countries  and  many  ages,  being  embodied  in  numerous 
Versions,  including  the  Targum  of  Onkelos. 


I  Essays  in  Fentateuchal  Criticism.  45 

If  now  we  look  through  Genesis  to  find  whether  the  Tetra- 
grammaton  is  used  by  God  himself  (as  distinct  from  his  angel) 
in  a  revelation,  we  should  probably  only  count  xv.  7  and  xxviii. 
13.    The  other  passages  must  be  shortly  considered. 

(1)  In  xxii.  16  an  angel  appears  to  Abraham  and  uses  the 
phrase  *'  saith  the  Lord."  But  though  Hebrew  thought  fre- 
quently made  little  or  no  distinction  between  God  and  his  angel, 
yet  at  other  times  there  is  a  clear  difference,  and  it  appears  in 
this  passage  where  the  angel  treats  God's  words  as  being  those 
of  a  Being  distinct  from  himself  and  accordingly  makes  them  a 
quotation. 

(2)  In  xviii.  19,  the  narrative  represents  God  as  using  the 
Name  in  a  soliloquy.  This  then  is  no  contradiction  of  the  state- 
ment of  Exodus  vi.  3. 

(3)  Lastly  in  xviii.  14  we  have  the  speech  "  Is  anything  too 
hard  for  the  Lord."  Here  all  the  Septuagintal  authorities,  ex- 
cept the  Lucianic  MSS.,  unite  on  "  God  "  as  the  original  read- 
ing of  the  LXX.  This  may  be  right,  but  we  are  not  certain  that 
even  the  Massoretic  text  is  strictly  in  conflict  with  Exodus  vi. 
3.  The  true  meaning  of  that  passage  (in  so  far  as  it  can  be 
ascertained  with  our  present  materials)  can  only  be  realized  in 
the  light  of  the  comparative  evidence,  and  it  might  be  argued 
that  it  is  to  be  interpreted  of  direct  revelations  of  the  Name, 
not  of  its  use  incidentally  in  conversation.  This  is  a  point  on 
which  no  certain  conclusion  is  at  present  possible,  and  we  must 
therefore  leave  it  as  doubtful,  bearing  in  mind  the  fact  that 
there  is  an  important  variant  in  the  LXX. 

This  exhausts  the  other  passages,  and  it  only  remains  to  con- 
sider xxviii.  13  and  xv.  7.  The  former  case  is  absolutely  clear 
on  mere  grounds  of  textual  criticism,  (a)  A  Hebrew  MS. 
omits  the  word  "  Lord  "  and  there  can  be  very  little  doubt  that 
originally  the  LXX  did  too.     {h)     The   analogy  of  xxvi.   24 


46  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

favors  the  reading  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham  thy  father." 
(c)  Palasographically  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the 
shorter  text.  It  is  known  that  ••  was  frequently  treated  as  an 
abbreviation  of  the  Tetragrammaton.  A  good  instance  occurs 
in  Exodus  xxxiii.  19,  where  the  LXX  treated  "'D'^2,  as  one  word, 
and  translated  "  On  my  name,"  while  the  Massoretic  tradition 
divided  it  into  two  and  read  ^  D^2  "  On  the  name  of  the  Lord.'' 
But  ''3i5  "  I  "  ends  in  \  Hence  the  reading  has  arisen  from 
this  \  probably  from  its  having  been  accidentally  written 
twice  over,  possibly  however  in  another  way.  There  are  two 
ways  of  writing  this  word  —  in  full  with  the  %  or  defective 
without  the  \  Thus  in  days  before  separate  forms  were 
adopted  for  some  of  the  final  letters,  and  when  the  words  were 
not  divided,  it  would  be  possible,  if  the  word  were  written 
with  the  \  for  a  reader  to  think  it  was  written  defective  and 
read  "•:«  as  '•  JK.  Quite  apart  therefore  from  the  testimony 
of  Exodus  vi.  3,  it  is  clear  that  the  Tetragrammaton  is  not 
original  in  this  passage. 

There  only  remains  xv.  7.  Here  the  Massoretic  text  reads 
"  Lord  "  and  the  LXX  "  God."  There  is  no  palaeographical  pro- 
bability one  way  or  another.  We  have  seen  that  the  Tetragram- 
maton has  certainly  ousted  Elohim  from  the  Massoretic  text 
in  some  other  passages,  and  it  is  therefore  possible  that  it  has 
done  so  here.  We  think  the  Septuagintal  reading  right,  be- 
cause (1)  the  testimony  of  Exodus  vi.  3  is  here  certain  and  ex- 
plicit; and  (2)  in  all  the  other  passages  in  Genesis  where  God 
appears  the  Tetragrammaton  is  avoided  in  the  revelation. 

Thus  it  would  seem  that  originally  the  Pentateuch  presented 
a  consistent  text  in  which  God  announced  to  Moses  that  He 
had  revealed  Himself  to  the  patriarchs,  but  had  not  revealed 
Himself  by  His  Name. 

While  this  text  is  formally  consistent,  it  at  first  sight  appears 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  47 

to  mean  nothing  intelligible.  It  is  at  this  stage  that  the  com- 
parative historical  method  comes  to  the  rescue,  and  enables  us 
to  appreciate  the  true  sense  —  at  any  rate  to  some  extent. 

In  order  to  understand  the  Pentateuch  we  must  so  far  as 
possible  restore  the  conditions  for  which  it  was  in  the  first 
instance  designed.  Those  who  believe  in  a  God  will  not  doubt 
that  it  is  possible  for  Him  to  give  men  new  hearts  in  the  spirit- 
ual sense ;  but  no  attentive  reader  of  the  Pentateuch  will  sup- 
pose that  He  is  represented  as  having  done  so  to  the  Hebrews 
who  left  Egypt.  Still  less  can  it  be  conceived  that  He  gave 
them  new  hearts  in  the  intellectual  sense.  Enactment  after  en- 
actment, narrative  after  narrative,  are  only  intelligible  when  it 
is  realized  that  the  intellectual  condition  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
Mosaic  Age  was  very  rudimentary.^  Customs,  laws,  actions, 
alike  receive  a  new  aspect  when  considered  in  the  light  of 
what  is  known  of  other  races  in  a  more  or  less  primitive  con- 
dition. Accordingly  when  we  find  a  passage  in  which  ob- 
vious importance  is  attached  to  the  revelation  of  a  name,  we 
proceed  to  ask:  (1)  whether  there  are  any  known  primitive 
ideas  which  would  assist  us  in  comprehending  this;  and  (2) 
whether  there  are  any  traces  of  such  ideas  in  the  Bible. 

The  very  familiarity  of  many  of  the  biblical  passages  fre- 
quently prevents  our  realizing  how  far  removed  are  the  ideas 
they  represent  from  those  of  our  own  day.  Yet  they  contain 
the  most  convincing  evidence  that  names  were  often  regarded 
as  something  very  much  more  than  the  mere  labels  they  are 
to-day.  Take  the  numerous  passages  in  which  we  read  of 
God's  "  setting  his  Name  "  at  Jerusalem,  or  making  his  Name 
dwell  there,  or  of  a  House  being  built  to  his  Name.  They  pre- 
suppose the  objective  existence  of  the  Name.  In  Deuteronomy 
»See  Murray's   Illustrated  Bible  Dictionary    (1908),  p.  462b. 


48  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

xxviii.  58  we  read  of  "  this  glorious  and  awful  Name  "  as  a 
proper  subject  of  fear.  This  Name  may  be  profaned  not  mere- 
ly by  false  swearing  (Lev.  xix.  12)  — an  idea  that  is  compara- 
tively intelligible  even  in  the  light  of  modern  notions  —  but  by 
actions  such  as  giving  seed  to  Molech  (Lev.  xviii.  21 ;  xx.  3), 
or  by  priests  violating  the  rules  laid  down  for  their  caste  (Lev. 
XXI.  6;  cp.  Mai.  i.  6  ff.).  In  this  Name  men  may  trust  (Isa. 
I.  10)  :  in  it  men  may  find  help  (Ps.  cxxiv.  8;  cp.  xx.  1  f.). 
But  perhaps  the  two  passages  in  which  the  conception  of  the 
objective  existence  of  the  Name  is  carried  farthest  are  Exo- 
dus xxiii.  20  f.  and  Isaiah  xxx.  27.  The  former  passage  runs 
thus :  "  Behold,  I  send  an  angel  before  thee,  to  keep  thee  by  the 
way,  and  to  bring  thee  to  the  place  which  I  have  prepared. 
Take  heed  of  him,  and  hearken  unto  his  voice:  provoke  him 
not :  for  he  will  not  pardon  your  transgression,  for  My  Name 
is  in  him.'*  It  would  be  impossible  to  hold  a  clearer  view  of 
the  definite  objective  existence  of  a  name  and  of  its  being 
indued  with  special  powers,  than  is  here  revealed.  Isaiah  xxx. 
27  is  a  little  different :  "  Behold,  the  Name  of  the  Lord  cometh 
from  far,  burning  with  his  anger,  and  in  thick  rising  smoke: 
his  lips  are  full  of  indignation,  and  his  tongue  is  as  a  devouring 
fire."  Here  the  Name  of  the  Lord  might  almost  be  taken  as 
a  term  for  God  himself.  But  whatever  interpretation  be  put  on 
this  passage,  one  thing  is  clear :  the  use  of  language  here  can 
have  arisen  only  out  of  notions  in  which  a  name  was  regarded 
as  having  a  separate  objective  existence. 

These  notions  are  widely  spread  among  primitive  peoples. 
Here  is  the  testimony  of  various  writers. 

"  Unable  to  discriminate  clearly  between  words  and  things  [writes 
Dr.  Frazer],  the  savage  commonly  fancies  that  the  link  between  a 
name  and  the  person  or  thing  denominated  by  it  is  not  a  mere  arbi- 
trary and  ideal  association,  but  a  real  and  substantial  bond  which 
unites   the  two    in   such   a   way   that,    for   example,  magic  may  be 


Essays  in  Pcntateuchal  Criticism.  49 

* 
wrought  on  a  man  just  as  easily  through  his  name  as  through  his 
hair,  his  nails  or  any  other  material  part  of  his  person.  In  fact, 
primitive  man  regards  his  name  as  a  vital  portion  of  himself  and 
takes  care  of  it  accordingly."  (Frazer,  Golden  Bough  (2d  ed.)  vol. 
i.  pp.  403  f.) 

"  It  may  be  said  [says  Dr.  Tylor]  ....  that  the  effect  of  an  ina- 
bility to  separate,  so  clearly  as  we  do,  the  external  object  from  the 
mere  thought  or  idea  of  it  in  the  mind,  shows  itself  very  fully  and 
clearly  in  the  superstitious  beliefs  and  practices  of  the  untaught 
man,  but  its  results  are  by  no  means  confined  to  such  matters.  .  .  . 
But  between  our  clearness  of  separation  of  what  is  in  the  mind  from 
what  is  out  of  it,  and  the  mental  confusion  of  the  lowest  savages  of 
our  own  day,  there  is  a  vast  interval.  .  .  .  Especially  we  may  see,  in 
the  superstitions  connected  with  language,  the  vast  difference  be- 
tween what  a  name  is  to  the  savage  and  what  it  is  to  us,  to  whom 
'  words  are  the  counters  of  wise  men  and  the  money  of  fools.' "  (E. 
B.  Tylor,  Early  History  of  Mankind   (3d  ed.)   pp.  148 f.) 

"  Barbaric  man  believes  that  his  name  is  a  vital  part  of  himself, 
and  therefore  that  the  names  of  other  men  and  of  superhuman  beings 
are  also  vital  parts  of  themselves.  He  further  believes  that  to  know 
the  name  is  to  put  its  owner,  whether  he  be  deity,  ghost,  or  mortal, 
in  the  power  of  another,  involving  risk  of  harm  or  destruction  to 
the  named.  He  therefore  takes  all  kinds  of  precautions  to  conceal 
his  name,  often  from  his  friend,  and  always  from  his  foe.  This  be- 
lief, and  the  resulting  acts,  as  will  be  shown  presently,  are  a  part  of 
that  general  confusion  between  the  objective  and  the  subjective — in 
other  words,  between  names  and  things  or  between  symbols  and 
realities — which  is  a  universal  feature  of  barbaric  modes  of  thought 
This  confusion  attributes  the  qualities  of  living  things  to  things  not 
living.  ...  To  look  for  any  consistency  in  barbaric  philosophy  is  to 
disqualify  ourselves  for  understanding  it,  and  the  theories  of  it 
which  aim  at  symmetry  are  their  own  condemnation."  (E.  Clodd, 
Tom-Tit-Tot,  pp.  53-55.)^ 

This  theory  of  the  objective  existence  of  the  tiame  is  evi- 
denced by  all  sorts  of  superstitions.  The  idea  underlying  some 
of  them  gives  us  the  necessary  clue  to  the  explanation  of  our 
passage.  Thus  Dr.  Tylor  writes  that  "  the  intense  aversion 
which  savages  have  from  uttering  their  own  names,  has  often 
been  noticed  by  travellers."  (Op.  cit.,  p.  140.)  Numerous 
customs   could  be  cited  from  the  works  of  Tylor  and   Frazer, 

^  We  are  indebted  to  Frazer's  Golden  Bough  for  this  reference. 


50  Essays  in  Pentatenchal  Criticism. 

but  they  would  consume  too  much  space.  We  therefore  limit 
ourselves  for  the  present  to  the  following  extracts  from  Fra- 
zer's  "  Golden  Bough." 

"  When  an  Ojebway  is  asked  his  name,  he  will  look  at  some  by- 
stander and  ask  him  to  answer.  'This  reluctance  arises  from  an 
impression  they  receive  when  young,  that  if  they  repeat  their  own 
names  it  will  prevent  their  growth,  and  they  will  be  small  in  stat- 
ure.' ...  In  this  last  case  no  scruple  seems  to  be  felt  about  commu- 
nicating a  man's  name  to  strangers,  and  no  ill  effects  appear  to  be 
dreaded  as  a  consequence  of  divulging  it;  harm  is  only  done  when 
a  name  is  spoken  by  its  owner.  Why  is  this?  and  why  in  particular 
should  a  man  be  thought  to  stunt  his  growth  by  uttering  his  own 
name?  We  may  conjecture  that  to  savages  who  act  and  think  thus 
a  person's  name  only  seems  to  be  a  part  of  himself  when  it  is  ut- 
tered with  his  own  breath ;  uttered  by  the  breath  of  others  it  has  no 
vital  connection  with  him,  and  no  harm  can  come  to  him  through  it. 
Whereas,  so  these  primitive  philosophers  may  have  argued,  when  a 
man  lets  his  own  name  pass  his  lips,  he  is  parting  with  a  living 
piece  of  himself,  and  if  he  persists  in  so  reckless  a  course  he  must 
certainly  end  by  dissipating  his  energy  and  shattering  his  consti- 
tution. .  .  . 

"  Ilow^ever  we  may  explain  it,  the  fact  is  certain  that  many  a 
savage  evinces  the  strongest  reluctance  to  pronounce  his  own  name, 
while  at  the  same  time  he  makes  no  objection  at  all  to  other  people 
pronouncing  it,  and  will  even  invite  them  to  do  so  for  him  in  order 
to  satisfy  the  curiosity  of  an  inquisitive  stranger.  Thus  in  some 
parts  of  Madagascar  it  is  fady  or  taboo  for  a  person  to  tell  his  own 
name,  but  a  slave  or  attendant  will  answer  for  him.  .  .  .  The  same 
curious  inconsistency,  as  it  may  seem  to  us,  is  recorded  of  some 
tribes  of  American  Indians.  Thus  we  are  told  that  *  the  name  of  an 
American  Indian  is  a  sacred  thing,  not  to  be  divulged  by  the  owner 
himself  without  due  consideration.  One  may  ask  a  warrior  of  any 
tribe  to  give  his  name,  and  the  question  will  meet  with  either  a 
point-blank  refusal  or  the  more  diplomatic  evasion  that  he  cannot 
understand  what  is  wanted  of  him.  The  moment  a  friend  ap- 
proaches, the  warrior  first  interrogated  will  whisper  what  is  wanted, 
and  the  friend  can  tell  the  name,  receiving  a  reciprocation  of  the 
courtesy  from  the  other.' 

"  This  general  statement  applies,  for  example,  to  the  Indian  tribes 
of  British  Columbia,  as  to  whom  it  is  said  that  'one  of  their 
strangest  prejudices,  which  appears  to  pervade  all  tribes  alike,  is  a 
dislike  to  telling  their  names — thus  you  never  get  a  man's  right 
name  from  himself;  but  they  will  tell  each  other's  names  without 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  51 

hesitation.'  ...  In  ttie  whole  of  the  East  Indian  Archipelago  the  eti- 
quette is  the  same.  As  a  general  rule  no  one  will  utter  his  own 
name.  To  inquire,  'What  is  your  name?'  is  a  very  indelicate  ques- 
tion in  native  society." 

Mr.  Frazer  then  quotes  a  number  of  other  examples,  con- 
cluding, "  No  Warua  will  tell  his  name,  but  he  does  not  object 
to  being  addressed  by  it."  He  then  proceeds  to  deal  with  other 
customs  which  bear  on  our  subject  and  should  be  considered 
by  all  who  are  interested  in  it  (see  Golden  Bough,  2d  ed.,  vol. 
i.  pp.  403  ff.).  In  particular  Exodus  vi.  3  should  be  compared 
with  what  Dr.  Frazer  says  about  secondary  names. 

On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Giesebrecht,  who  has  written  a  mon- 
ograph on  the  importance  of  the  Divine  Name  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, in  summing  up  the  results  of  his  examination  of  a 
quantity  of  comparative  material,  comes  to  a  somewhat  differ- 
ent conclusion  with  regard  to  the  use  of  the  name  of  a  deity. 
He  holds  that  the  name  of  the  god  puts  his  power  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  person  using  it.  By  its  very  nature  the  power  of 
a  god  is  greater  than  the  power  of  a  man.  Therefore  the  name 
of  a  god  is  the  strongest  conceivable  source  of  power  that  a 
man  can  hold.^ 

With  the  precise  explanations  that  have  been  offered  of  the 
varying  phenomena  we  are  not  greatly  concerned.  Possibly  no 
single  explanation  will  account  for  all  the  facts.  For  our  pres- 
ent purpose  we  have  to  note  two  points.  First,  a  name  is  con- 
ceived as  having  an  objective  existence  and  as  being  either 
closely  linked  with  or  else  an  actual  part  of  its  bearer:  (and  it 
is  immaterial  whether  this  is  best  expressed  by  comparing  the 
relation  of  the  two  to  that  of  a  man  and  his  shadow  or  in  some 
other  way).  Secondly,  there  is  a  wide  difference  in  the  view 
of  many  savages  between  a  man's  pronouncing  his  name  him- 

*  Giesebrecht  Die  Alttestamentliche  Schatzung  des  Gottesnamens 
und  ihre  Religionsgeschichtliche  Grundlage,  Konigsberg,  1901,  p.  90. 


52  Essays  in  Pcntateuchal  Criticism. 

self  in  answer  to  the  direct  question  and  merely  being  accosted 
by  it.  If  in  reply  to  a  question  he  gives  his  name,  it  is  held 
that  he  is  giving  his  interlocutor  some  hold  on  him. 

We  proceed  to  apply  these  notions  to  the  problem  before  us. 
We  have  seen  that  among  the  ancient  Hebrews  some  similar 
ideas  prevailed,  and  the  great  work  of  the  Mosaic  Age  was 
necessarily  conditioned  by  the  intellectual  condition  of  the  peo- 
ple for  and  through  whom  it  was  wrought.  It  is  of  course 
evident  that  the  Pentateuch  regards  the  Name  of  God  as  won- 
derworking. We  have  quoted  the  passages  from  Deuteronomy 
where  it  is  spoken  of  as  "  glorious  and  awful  "  and  the  com- 
mand to  fear  it  is  given,  and  from  Exodus  where  an  angel  will 
punish  sin  because  this  Name  is  in  him.  Now  let  us  go  back  to 
another  passage  that  has  an  important  bearing  on  our  point. 
Jacob  wrestles  with  a  stranger,  and  asks  his  name.  The  answer 
refuses  the  information  sought.  "  Wherefore  is  it  that  thou  dost 
ask  after  my  name?"  (Gen.  xxxii.  30  (29).)  Still  more  sig- 
nificant is  a  passage  in  the  book  of  Judges :  "And  Manoah  said 
unto  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  What  is  thy  name,  that  when  thy 
words  come  to  pass  we  may  do  thee  honor?  And  the  angel  of 
the  Lord  said  unto  him.  Wherefore  askest  thou  after  my  name, 
seeing  it  is  wonderful"  ^  (xiii.  I'M.).  But  most  interesting 
and  significant  of  all  is  the  refusal  of  the  Name  to  Moses  him- 
self. He  endeavors  to  induce  God  to  say  "  I  am  the  Lord." 
The  result  is  a  most  interesting  avoidance.  Instead  of  the  clear 
answer,  the  reply  "  I  am  that  I  am"  is  given  (Ex.  iii.  14). 
This  appears  to  be  an  example  of  the  common  Semitic  idem  per 
idem  construction  by  which  a  speaker  refuses  information. 
Then  as  the  Name  could  not  be  withheld  qua  information, 
while  it  was  desired  to  withhold  it  qua  pledge  of  God's  pre- 
sence, recourse  is  had  to  a  quotation.    God  does  not  say,  "  I  am 

^  Or  "  secret." 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  53 

the  Lord."  On  the  contrary,  he  instructs  Moses  to  say  to  the 
children  of  Israel,  "  The  Lord,  the  God  of  your  fathers,"  etc., 
and  this  method  is  persistently  adhered  to  (iii.  15,  16,  18). 
How  unnatural  it  is  will  be  seen  when  we  contrast  (1)  the  sub- 
sequent frequency  of  the  "  I  am  the  Lord  "  that  rings  through 
the  Pentateuch  after  vi.  2,  and  (2)  the  very  direct  "  I  am  the 
God  of  thy  father  "  used  in  iii.  6  and  in  other  places.  We 
shall  revert  to  this  passage  in  a  moment,  for  we  have  not  yet 
exhausted  the  information  it  conveys.  But  we  shall  understand 
it  better  when  we  have  examined  Exodus  vi.  2  more  carefully. 
Meanwhile  there  is  a  savage  parallel  that  comes  very  close  to 
this :  "  Among  many  tribes  of  South  Africa  men  and  women 
never  mention  their  names  if  they  can  get  any  one  else  to  do  it 
for  them,  but  they  do  not  absolutely  refuse  when  it  cannot  be 
avoided."  ^ 

To  the  Israelite  of  the  Mosaic  Age  it  is  clear  that  what  may 
be  called  the  direct  and  intentional  revelation  of  the  Divine 
Name  by  God  (i.e.  the  unambiguous  statement  "  I  am . the 
Lord  ")  to  a  mortal  had  a  very  special  significance.  It  may  be 
that  it  was  regarded  as  a  direct  pledge  of  the  Divine  presence : 
or  again  as  an  objective  handing  over  of  power  to  work  cer- 
tain wonders :  or  as  establishing  a  special  relationship  between 
the  Deity  and  the  favored  mortal :  or  as  involving  all  these. 
The  precise  shade  of  meaning  must  be  left  to  be  determined  by 
future  research.  That  there  was  such  a  meaning  appears  to  us 
indubitable  in  the  light  of  the  passages  and  parallels  we  have 
considered. 

It  remains  to  examine  the  narrative  and  see  how  Exodus  vi. 

2  fits  into  the  context  on  this  conception  of  its  meaning.     Is 

there  anything  to  lead  an  impartial  reader  to  hold  either  that 

this  passage  gives  a  pledge  of  closer  connection  or  of  the  use  of 

^Frazer,  o/>.  cit.  vol.  i.  p.  411. 


54  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Divine  might  or  that  such  a  pledge  would  be  in  place  ?  The 
answer  to  both  branches  of  the  question  can  be  only  in  the 
affirmative.  The  intervention  of  Moses  has  served  only  to  make 
the  position  of  the  Israelites  worse,  and  they  are  not  slow  to 
give  vent  to  their  dissatisfaction  (v.  21).  Then  Moses  returns 
to  the  Lord  with  the  words :  "  Lord,  wherefore  hast  thou 
evil  entreated  this  people?  Why  is  it  that  thou  hast  sent  me? 
For  since  I  came  to  Pharaoh  to  speak  in  thy  name,  he  hath  evil 
entreated  this  people;  neither  hast  thou  delivered  thy  people 
at  all."  The  last  words  in  particular  show  that  Moses  was  in  a 
mood  when  some  guarantee  of  the  Divine  assistance  was  need- 
ed. Then  comes  the  promise  "  Now  shalt  thou  see  what  I  will 
do  to  Pharaoh :  for  by  a  strong  hand  shall  he  let  them  go,  and 
by  a  strong  hand  shall  he  drive  them  out  of  his  land."  Then 
comes  the  revelation  of  the  Name,  clinching  this  promise.  The 
context  thus  leads  up  to  the  passage  admirably  on  this  view  of 
its  true  meaning :  if  now  we  examine  vi.  2-8  in  the  light  of 
these  ideas  it  will  be  found  that  the  other  portions  of  the  Divine 
utterance  bear  this  out.  Stress  is  laid  on  the  fact  that  some- 
thing —  some  connection  with  God  —  is  being  given  to  the  He- 
brews that  had  not  been  given  to  the  patriarchs.  And  this  rela- 
tionship either  includes,  or  at  any  rate  is  linked  with,  the  sure 
promise  of  salvation :  "  I  am  the  Lord,  and  I  will  bring  you 
out  from  under  the  burdens  of  the  Egyptians,"  etc.  That  is 
the  answer  to  the  complaint  of  Moses,  and  it  is  a  complete 
answer. 

We  thus  conceive  the  utterance  of  the  words  **  I  am  the 
Lord  "  not  as  the  introduction  of  a  new  and  unfamiliar  name, 
nor  as  the  revelation  of  a  new  meaning  possessed  by  a  name  al- 
ready known,  but  as  the  inauguration  of  a  new  and  more  inti- 
mate relationship.  By  them  the  use  of  the  Divine  might  on 
Israel's  behalf  was  irrevocably  pledged  in  a  manner  in  which  it 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  55 

had  not  been  before :  and  this  was  done  in  the  way  that  would 
be  most  intelHgible  and  convincing  to  people  in  the  intellectual 
condition  of  the  Israelites  of  that  day. 

We  return  now  to  the  narrative  of  Exodus  iii.  In  verse  6 
God  reveals  himself  to  Moses  with  the  words  "  I  am  the  God 
of  thy  father,  the  God  of  Abraham,"  etc.  Two  points  call  for 
attention.  First,  the  Tetragrammaton  is  not  used ;  and,  second- 
ly, the  revelation  is  made  to  stand  on  precisely  the  same  level  as 
the  revelations  to  the  patriarchs.  Here  God  raises  Moses  to 
the  same  position  as  Abraham,  Isaac,  or  Jacob,  but  to  no  more 
intimate  relationship.  He  then  proceeds  to  give  Moses  his  mis- 
sion. This  draws  from  the  mortal  an  expression  of  his  own 
incapacity,  to  which  God  replies  that  He  will  be  with  him  (ver. 
12) .  Then  comes  the  question  as  to  the  Name.  It  has  a  double 
meaning.  Superficially  and  ostensibly  it  is  a  request  for  infor- 
mation :  but  in  its  full  and  most  fundamental  signification  it  is 
a  demand  for  a  guarantee  —  to  put  the  matter  at  its  lowest. 
Accordingly  it  receives  a  twofold  answer.  The  request  for  the 
guarantee  is  unambiguously  refused:  the  desired  information 
is  readily  given.  And  throughout  that  answer  the  identifica- 
tion with  the  God  of  the  fathers  is  carefully  maintained.  Moses 
is  still  kept  on  the  same  plane  as  the  patriarchs.  This  leaves  him 
as  dissatisfied  as  before,  and  it  becomes  necessary  to  give  him 
the  power  to  work  certain  signs.  Thus  the  narrative  contrasts 
with  the  later  revelation  in  two  important  respects:  (1) 
Whereas  in  Exodus  iii.  Moses  receives  the  same  sort  of  reve- 
lation as  the  patriarchs,  in  Exodus  vi.  God  enters  into  a  con- 
nection with  the  Hebrews  that  differs  fundamentally  from  His 
relation  to  their  ancestors.  (2)  In  the  earlier  incident  it  is 
necessary  to  confer  on  Moses  power  to  work  certain  signs,  in 
the  later  the  phrase  "  I  am  the  Lord  "  is  in  itself  sufficient, 
without  anything  more.     Both  these  points  are  comprehended 


56  Essays  in  Pcntateuchal  Criticism. 

in  the  third  great  distinction  —  the  use  of  the  phrase  "  I  am  the 
Lord'"  in  chapter  vi.  as  against  its  studied  avoidance  in  chap- 
ter iii. 

To  modern  ideas  it  seems  strange  that  God  should  say,  "  Is 
it  not  I,  the  Lord  "  in  iv.  11,  or  that  there  should  ever  have 
been  a  time  when  such  a  phrase  or  the  statement  "  Thus  shalt 
thou  say.  .  .  .The  Lord,  the  God  of  your  fathers,"  etc.,  should 
not  be  held  to  embrace  everything  that  is  comprehended  in  the 
formula  of  vi.  2  f.,  but  we  must  take  early  societies  as  we  find 
them.  The  sentence  already  quoted  from  Mr.  Clodd  sums  up 
the  opinion  of  all  the  ablest  and  most  experienced  investiga- 
tors of  this  branch  of  anthropology :  "  To  look  for  any  consist- 
ency in  barbaric  philosophy  is  to  disqualify  ourselves  for  under- 
standing it,  and  the  theories  of  it  which  aim  at  symmetry  are 
their  own  condemnation."  Thus  it  comes  about  that  to  the 
Israelites  of  the  Mosaic  Age  there  would  be  no  inconsistency  or 
difficulty  in  the  statements  of  the  Pentateuch.  They  would 
realize  that  the  true  inward  meaning  was  to  make  the  Lord 
their  God,  to  bind  Him  to  them  and  them  to  Him  in  a  close- 
ness of  connection  which  He  had  never  before  vouchsafed 
to  any  of  His  creatures. 


CHAPTER  II. 

In  coming  to  the  other  difficulties  raised  on  the  early  chap- 
ters of  Exodus,  we  begin  with  Mr.  Carpenter's  opening  note 
on  the  book,  but  for  reasons  of  convenience  we  defer  the 
consideration  of  the  numbers  of  the  Israelites.^ 

EGYPT   OR   GOSHEN? 

"According  to  J  [writes  Mr.  Carpenter  on  Exodus]  Gen  xlv  10 
xlvi  28  xlvii  27a  Israel  is  settled  in  Goshen,  and  this  view  is  found 
in  viii  22  ix  26.  .  .  .  But  in  E  Gen  xlvi  18  [xlv  18?]  and  P  Gen  xlvii 
11  the  Israelites  settle  in  Egypt.  There  they  are  accordingly  found 
in  close  proximity  with  Egyptian  neighbours,  from  whom  they  can 
asl£  for  valuables  iii  22  xi  2,  or  from  whose  houses  they  must  care- 
fully distinguish  their  own  that  the  Lord  may  pass  over  them  xii 
13.  They  are  near  enough  to  the  capital  for  the  king  to  communi- 
cate with  the  Hebrew  midwives."     (Oxford  Hexateuch,  vol.  ii.  p.  80.) 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra 
for  January,  1907  (p.  12),  that  J,  which  places  the  Israelites 
in  Goshen,  regards  them  as  being  in  sufficiently  "  close  proxim- 
ity with  Egyptian  neighbours  "  to  be  in  danger  of  stoning 
(Ex.  viii.  26).  "  Clearly  if  the  Israelites  in  Goshen  were  near 
enough  to  the  Egyptians  to  be  aptly  described  as  being  '  before 
their  eyes  '  and  in  danger  of  stoning,  they  were  near  enough 

^  See  infra,  pp.   155-169. 

67 


58  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

to  borrow  jewels  when  occasion  arose.  The  critics  seem 
wholly  unable  to  realize  that  the  residence  of  the  Israelites  in 
Goshen  does  not  necessarily  exclude  the  presence  of  Egyp- 
tians in  that  district."  It  is,  however,  right  also  to  examine 
the  passages  in  J,  on  which  Mr.  Carpenter  relies,  in  order  to 
see  how  this  supposed  contradiction  has  been  created.  In 
Genesis  xlv.  10  he  prints  without  comment  "  and  thou  shalt 
dwell  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  and  thou  shalt  he  tUar  unto 
me,"  etc.;  and  in  xlvii.  27a  ("and  Israel  dwelt  in  the  land  of 
Egypt,  in  the  land  of  Goshen  ")  he  is  compelled  to  treat  "  in 
the  land  of  Egypt "  as  a  "  harmonizing  addition  "  by  a  priestly 
redactor,  for  no  reason  save  that  this  is  the  only  method  by 
which  a  contradiction  can  be  manufactured. 

Having  thus  taken  a  narrative  which  regards  the  Israelites 
as  being  settled  in  the  land  of  Egypt  in  the  land  of  Goshen, 
and  manufactured  a  contradiction  by  garbling  Genesis  xlvii. 
27  and  disregarding  Genesis  xlv.  10  and  Exodus  viii.  26,  Mr. 
Carpenter  is  naturally  in  the  position  of  being  able  to  use  this 
factitious  contradiction  for  the  purposes  of  the  analysis.  Ac- 
cordingly, when  he  comes  to  Exodus  iii.  21-22,  he  tears  these 
verses  from  their  context  and  assigns  them  to  E,  because 
"  these  instructions  must  obviously  belong  to  the  narrator  who 
regards  the  Israelites  as  settled,  not  apart  in  the  land  of  Go- 
shen, but  among  the  Egyptians  themselves."  ^ 

^It  is  worth  noting  Mr.  Carpenter's  metliod  of  dealing  with 
iii.  19  f.  Having  got  rid  of  21  f.  on  the  ground  stated  above,  he 
writes :  "  These  verses  do  not  seem  in  their  present  form  to  belong 
either  to  J  or  to  E.  Not  to  J  because  (1)  they  interrupt  the  connex- 
ion between  iii  16-18  and  iv  1,  and  (2)  they  contain  distinct  liter- 
ary marks  of  E,  'give  you  leave'  and  the  peculiar  infinitive  *to 
go'  [Heb.].  Yet  on  the  other  hand  the  phrase  'by  a  mighty  hand' 
does  not  belong  to  E,  but  tends  to  appear  in  passages  kindred  with 
D  :  for  •  wonders '  cp  xxxiv  10.  The  passage  seems  to  have  been  am- 
plified from  E  by  Rje  "  [ad.  loc,  p.  84].  That  these  verses  should 
appear  out  of  place  when  their  proper  sequel  is  removed  is  of  course 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  59 

Again,  in  his  note  on  vii.  8,  in  dealing  with  the  narrative  of 
the  plagues,  he  writes :  **  J  has  already  located  the  Israelites 
in  the  land  of  Goshen  Gen  xlv  10  and  they  are  accordingly 
represented  as  residing  there  in  viii  32  ix  26 ;  they  are  con- 
sequently unaffected  by  the  flies  or  the  hail.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  x  21-23  they  are  living  in  the  midst  of  the  people  in 
Egypt  itself,  and  their  immunity  from  the  oppression  of  the 
darkness  is  secured  by  the  appearance  of  light  in  their  dwell- 
ings. This  latter  view  of  their  intermingling  with  the  Egyp- 
tians lies  at  the  basis  of  the  instructions  in  iii  21  f  and  their 
sequel  xi  2  f,  and  the  passages  founded  on  it  must  be  assigned 
to  E."  The  statement  in  x.  21-23  is  that  "  there  was  a  thick 
darkness  in  all  the  land  of  Egypt  ....  but  all  the  children  of 
Israel  had  light  in  their  dwellings."  There  is  here  no  sugges- 
tion that  these  dwellings  were  anywhere  but  "  in  the  land  of 
Egypt,  in  the  land  of  Goshen."  Once  more  this  misconcep- 
tion makes  its  appearance.  In  the  note  on  xii.  21  we  read, 
"  In  21-27  there  are  traces  of  different  hands  blended  into  one 
editorial  complex.  The  opening  and  closing  formulae  seem  to 
belong  to  J  ...  .  though  it  may  be  questioned  how  far  the  im- 
plication that  the  Israelites  were  mixed  up  with  the  Egyptians 
can  be  ascribed  to  the  original  J,  who  places  them  apart  in  Go- 
shen." If  Mr.  Carpenter  could  only  have  realized  that  "  in 
Goshen  "  does  not  necessarily  mean  *''  apart  in  Goshen  "  either 

inevitable.  It  results  not  from  any  impropriety  in  the  narrative,  but 
from  Mr.  Carpenter's  own  proceedings.  As  to  his  "  literary  marks," 
it  is  interesting  to  turn  up  the  references  in  his  lists  of  words.  Of 
"  give  you  leave  "  it  is  alleged  that  it  occurs  five  times  in  E,  once  in 
J  in  a  passage  assigned  to  a  priestly  redactor,  once  here,  where  it  is 
given  to  Rje,  and  twice  in  D.  As  to  "  by  a  mighty  hand,"  the  list  of 
words  contains  five  references  to  JE,  five  to  D,  and  one  to  a  Deuter- 
onomic  redactor  in  Joshua  iv.  24.  It  will  occur  to  most  people  to 
wonder  that  this  sort  of  argument  can  be  gravely  put  forward  and 
considered  by  men  who  claim  to  be  scholars. 


60  Essays  in  Pentatenchal  Criticism, 

in  Hebrew  or  in  English,  he  might  have  been  spared  much 
embarrassment. 

THE  STORY  OF  MOSES. 

The  next  charge  is  as  follows : — 

"The  story  of  Moses  further  shows  some  interesting  variations. 
In  ii  15  f  he  dwells  in  the  land  of  Midian,  and  in  16,  21  marries  the 
daughter  of  the  priest  of  Midian  and  has  one  son  21  f  cp  iv  19  f. 
When  he  returns  to  Egypt  his  wife  and  son  accompany  him  iv  20. 
In  iii  1,  however,  his  father  in  law  is  named  Jethro  cp  iv  18,  and 
Moses  leads  the  flock  to  the  mountain  of  God,  identified  as  Horeb  cp 
*  this  mountain  *  12.  On  his  return  to  Egypt  his  wife  remains  be- 
hind, and  when  Jethro  brings  her  to  her  husband  she  has  two  sons 
xviii  5  f ;  later  on  she  is  described  as  a  Cushite  Num  xii  1."  (Vol. 
ii.  p.  80.) 

There  are  here  four  distinct  charges  :  ( 1 )  in  one  document 
(J)  the  father-in-law  of  Moses  is  the  priest  of  Midian,  in  an- 
other (E)  he  is  Jethro;  (2)  in  J  Moses  has  one  son,  in  E  two; 
(3)  in  J  he  is  accompanied  to  Egypt  by  his  wife  and  son,  in 
E  they  remain  with  Jethro;  (4)  in  Numbers  Moses  has  a  wife 
who  is  a  Cushite. 

We  begin  with  the  first  charge.  The  father-in-law  is  named 
"Jethro,  the  priest  of  Midian,"  in  the  following  passages  of 
E:  Ex.  iii.  1  and  xviii.  1.  He  is  named  ''Jethro"  in  the  fol- 
lowing passages  of  J:  Ex.  xviii.  9,  10;  also  in  xviii.  2  (R^®), 
to  be  considered  presently.  He  is  called  "  the  priest  of  Mid- 
ian "  once  and  once  only  in  J,  viz.  ii.  16. 

On  this,  Mr.  Carpenter  proceeds  as  follows :  When  E 
speaks  of  ''  Jethro,  the  priest  of  Midian,"  he  simply  assigns 
the  words  "  priest  of  Midian  "  to  the  laborious  gentleman  who 
combined  J  with  E.  His  only  reason  for  doing  so  is  expressed 
in  the  note  on  iii.  lb.  "Some  critics  think  that  according  to  E 
the^  father-in-law  of  Moses  was  not  himself  priest.  If  so, 
these  words  must  be  regarded  as  a  harmonistic  addition." 
Similarly  with  "Jethro"  in  J.     It  is  of  course  nowhere  sug- 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  61 

gested  that  there  is  a  scintilla  of  evidence  to  justify  these  pro- 
ceedings. Such  testimony  as  exists  of  ancient  variants  is 
wholly  opposed  to  Mr.  Carpenter's  theory,  for  in  iii.  1  (E) 
the  Lucianic  recension  of  the  Septuagint  omits  not  "  the  priest 
of  Midian"  but  "  Jethro."  But  it  suits  Mr.  Carpenter  to  at- 
tribute certain  words  to  convenient  redactors ;  and  accordingly 
he  does  so,  and  thereby  manufactures  discrepancies.  So  out 
of  the  three  places  in  all  where  "  priest  of  Midian  "  occurs  in 
the  Pentateuch,  two  go  to  the  harmonist.  As  to  the  alleged 
mental  processes  of  "  some  critics  "  adduced  as  a  justification 
for  these  proceedings,  it  will  become  increasingly  clear  as  this 
inquiry  proceeds  what  weight  should  be  attributed  to  them. 

Our  second  '*  interesting  variation "  concerns  the  sons  of 
Moses,  It  is  perfectly  true  that  the  narrative  in  Exodus  ii. 
only  relates  the  birth  of  the  first  son,  but  it  by  no  means  fol- 
lowis  from  this  that  Moses  never  had  another.  In  point  of 
fact  J  proceeds  to  state  (iv.  20)  that  "  Moses  took  his  wife 
and  his  sons,"  and  Mr.  Carpenter  only  gets  out  of  this  by  al- 
tering the  plural  into  the  singular,  of  course  charging  one  of 
the  indispensable  redactors  with  having  changed  the  text. 
His  reasons  are  as  follows :  "J  has  only  related  the  birth  of 
one  son  ii  22,  and  25  implies  that  there  was  no  second.  The 
plural  seems  to  be  an  editorial  reference  to  xviii  2-4."  But  if 
we  turn  to  the  note  on  xviii.  2  we  find  that  the  analysis  there 
is  justified  by  the  assertion  that  "  in  J  Moses  had  but  one  son, 
on  his  return  to  Egypt,  when  his  wife  accompanied  him  iv  20, 
25."  The  only  real  foundation  for  all  this  is  the  expression 
''her  son"  in  iv.  25.  From  this  Mr.  Carpenter  infers  that 
Zipporah  had  only  one  son.  But  he  forgets  that,  on  his  own 
showing,  iv.  24-26  is  incomplete.  He  himself  believes  that  it 
comes  from  a  source  more  ancient  that  J.  In  that  case  it  can- 
not be  taken  to  prove  that  J   itself  knew  only  of  one  son. 


62  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

For  ourselves  we  think  that  there  is  some  ground  for  holding 
the  narrative  contained  in  these  verses  incomplete  in  its  pres- 
ent form.  Something  has  perhaps  dropped  out  of  the  text, 
and  consequently  no  inference  should  be  drawn  from  it.  If 
that  view  be  adopted,  or  if  Mr.  Carpenter's  inference  from  the 
expression  ''  her  son  "  occurring  in  a  narrative  which  he  him- 
self regards  as  fragmentary  be  rejected,  the  whole  case  falls 
to  the  ground. 

Before  proceeding  with  the  other  variations  charged,  it  is 
desirable  to  deal  with  the  only  substantial  point  that  is  alleged 
on  the  analysis  of  chapter  xviii.  Mr.  Carpenter  states  it  thus : 
"In  5  f  Jethro  arrives  and  converses  with  Moses,  yet  in  7 
Moses  sets  out  to  meet  him  "  (note  on  xviii.  2).  It  is  curious 
how  the  critics  who  are  always  quick  to  note  any  variation  in 
the  Samaritan  or  the  Versions  that  can  in  their  opinion  be 
twisted  into  the  service  of  their  hypothesis  ignore  those 
valuable  aids  when  they  tend  to  show  that  the  analysis  is  based 
on  textual  corruption.  In  this  instance  the  Samaritan,  Sep- 
tuagint,  Syriac,  all  read  M^n  ''behold,"  in  verse  6,  for  the 
Massdretic  •'JX  "  I."  The  editors  of  Exodus  in  Kittel's 
"  Biblia  Hebraica "  aptly  compare  Genesis  xlviii.  2,  where 
the  R.  V.  (Mr.  Carpenter  agreeing)  renders  the  Hebrew 
"  and  one  told  Jacob  and  said,  Behold,  thy  son  Joseph 
cometh  unto  thee."  On  that  analogy  Exodus  xviii.  6 
would  mean  "  and  one  [or,  according  to  another  possible 
pointing  of  the  Hebrew,  "  they  "]  said  unto  Moses,  Behold, 
thy  father-in-law  Jethro  cometh,"  etc.  We  think  this  text 
manifestly  superior  to  the  present  reading  of  the  Hebrew,  and 
it  will  be  observed  how  much  the  narrative  gains  in  continuity 
if  this  change  be  adopted.  Another  illustration  of  precisely  the 
same  error  is  afforded  by  Genesis  xii.  11,  where  the  Septu- 
agint  appears  to  have  had  a  Hebrew  text  reading    "  I,"    for 


Essays  in  Pentatenchal  Criticism.  63 

the  correct  Massoretic  "behold."  It  should  be  added  that 
in  xviii.  G,  the  Septuagint  appears  to  be  based  on  a  Hebrew 
text,  which,  like  Genesis  xlviii.  2,  read,  "And  one  told  Moses 
and  said." 

We  turn  now  to  the  statement  that  in  E  on  the  return  of 
Moses  his  wife  remains  behind.  This  is  pure  fiction.  There 
is  not  a  word  in  the  passages  attributed  to  E  that  in  any  wise 
supports  the  assertion.  Nevertheless,  Mr.  Carpenter,  having 
once  got  it  into  his  head,  does  rjot  fail  to  repeat  it  in  his  note  on 
xviii.  2,  saying,  "  E,  on  the  other  hand,  represented  Moses  as 
leaving  his  family  under  his  father  in  law's  care."  This  is  as 
untrue  as  the  allegation  that  J  placed  the  Israelites  apart  in 
Goshen.  With  the  correction  of  the  text  in  xviii.  6  the  whole 
of  that  chapter  forms  an  intelligible  and  continuous  narrative, 
and  the  statements  in  2  ff.  that  Moses  had  sent  his  wife  and 
sons  away  and  that  they  were  subsequently  brought  to  him 
entirely  fit  in  with  all  that  has  gone  before.  It  is  not  impos- 
sible that  the  original  text  of  iv.  26  told  how  Zipporah  (not 
the  angel)  left  Moses  after  calling  him  a  bridegroom  of  blood. 

As  to  the  Cushite  wife,  nobody  knows  whether  this  refers 
to  a  second  wife  or  whether  she  is  identical  with  Zipj>orah,^ 
recent  discoveries  having  given  ground  for  supposing  that 
there  was  a  Cush  in  North  Arabia;  and  Mr.  Carpenter  does 
not  make  any  serious  attempt  to  rely  on  this  point  for  the  pur- 
poses of  his  analysis. 

To  sum  up :  all  the  alleged  variations  on  which  Mr.  Carpeni- 
ter  places  any  reliance  are  factitious  with  the  possible  excep- 
tion of  the  inference  he  draws  from  the  phrase  "  her  son  "  in  iv. 
25  in  a  passage  which  he  himself  regards  as  an  incomplete 
fragment ;  but  we  have  found  that  in  a  kindred  chapter  there  is 

^As  will  subsequently  appear  in  our  discussion  of  the  position  of 
the  Tent  of  Meeting  {infra,  p.  99,  note),  we  think  this  hypothesis 
very  plausible. 


64  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

g(X>d  reason  for  supposing  that  a  slight  corruption  of  the  text 
is  responsible  for  a  seeming  inconsistency  in  the  narrative. 

MOSES    AND   AARON    OR    MOSES? 

Mr.  Carj>enter's  next  charge  is  extremely  obscure : — 

"  In  the  interviews  with  Pharaoh  one  set  of  demands  is  urged  by 
Moses  alone  in  the  name  of  *the  Lobd  God  of  the  Hebrews'  iii  18 
V  3  vii  16  ix  1  f ,  13  X  3 ;  and  Moses  asks  leave  to  go  three  days'  jour- 
ney into  the  wilderness  to  sacrifice  to  the  Lord  iii  18  v  3  viii  27,  or 
serve  him  vii  16  viii  1,  20  ix  1,  13  x  3,  etc.  Another  formula  is  found 
in  iii  12,  *  serve  Elohim  upon  this  mountain,'  while  in  the  name  of 
*  the  Lobd  God  of  Israel '  Moses  requires  the  release  of  Israel  that 
they  may  hold  a  feast  to  him  in  the  wilderness  v  1.  A  third  demand 
is  made  by  Aaron  vii  2-7."     (Vol.  ii.  p.  80.) 

While  Mr.  Carpenter's  grievances  are  not  at  all  clear,  the 
same  cannot  be  said  of  his  misrepresentations.  First,  it  is  not 
true  that  *'  Moses  alone  "  urges  one  set  of  demands  in  v.  3,  etc. 
(J)  or  that  "  Moses  "  (as  contrasted  apparently  with  Moses 
and  Aaron)  requires  the  release  in  v.  1  (E).  In  v.  1  (E) 
Mr.  Carpenter  prints  "  Moses  and  Aaron  came."  In  v.  3  (J) 
he  prints  "And  they  said,  The  God  of  the  Hebrews  hath  met 
with  us"  (whom?).  In  v.  4  (E)  he  again  prints  "Where- 
fore do  ye,  Moses  and  Aaron,  loose  the  people,"  etc.  In  v 
20  (J)  he  suddenly  remembers  himself  and  assigns  "  and 
Aa/ron"  to  the  convenient  redactor,  but  he  forgets  to  alter 
"  unto  them  "  in  the  very  next  verse.  In  viii.  8,  12,  25 ;  ix.  27 
(all  J)  the  redactor  is  called  in,  but  Mr.  Carpenter  over- 
looks the  plural  in  ix.  27  and  28.  In  x.  3  (J)  "And  Moses 
and  Aaron  went  in  unto  Pharaoh,  and  said  "  goes  to  a  harmon- 
ist, and  in  8  (J)  the  redactor  is  dragged  in  to  account  for 
"  and  Aaron,"  as  also  in  16  (J)  :  but  Mr.  Carpenter  cannot  be 
expected  to  remember  that  in  8  (J)  "  unto  them  "  is  also 
plural,  and  that  in  11  (J)  "they"  were  driven  from  Phar- 
aoh's presence.  Once  more  in  xii.  31  (J)  "and  Aaron"  is 
swept  away  by  the  usual  method,  but  "  both  ye  and  the  chil- 


Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism.  65 

dren  of  Israel  "  is  suffered  to  remain.  Lastly  in  Joshua  xxiv. 
5  E  is  made  to  say,  "And  I  sent  Moses  and  Aaron."^  The  state- 
ment that  "a  third  demand  is  made  by  Aaron"  (vii.  2-7)  is 
also  untrue,  inasmuch  as  the  passage  cited  shows  Moses  and 
Aaron  cooperating,  Aaron  being  his  brother's  mouthpiece. 
Further  it  is  not  true  that  a  third  demand  is  made  by  Aaron. 
No  fresh  information  is  given  as  to  this  demand.  It  is  only 
the  same  demand  as  before.  Nor  are  there  two  other  demands, 
for  there  is  no  difference  between  asking  to  go  into  the  wil- 
derness to  hold  a  feast  and  asking  to  go  into  the  wilderness 
and  sacrifice.  There  are  abundant  instances  of  sacrificial 
feasts.  As  to  "  the  Lord  the  God  of  Israel,"  this  is  one  of  Mr. 
Carpenter's  factitious  *'  literary  marks."  It  is  used  oncCj  and 
once  only,  in  v.  1,  and  draws  from  Pharaoh  the  speech  "  Who 
is  the  Lord,  ...  I  know  not  the  Lord."  Whereupon  the  ex- 
planation is  given,  "  The  God  of  the  Hebrews  hath  met  with 
us,"  etc.  Mr.  Carpenter  is  impressed  with  the  phrase  "  serve 
Elohim "  in  iii.  12 :  does  he  really  imagine  that  ''  Elohim  of 
the  Hebrews  "  could  be  used  by  God  in  speaking  to  Moses 
or  any  Hebrew? 

At  this  point  it  will  probably  be  convenient  to  deal  with  the 
note  on  iv.  13,  which  connects  with  Mr.  Carpenter's  allega- 
tions about  Moses  and  Aaron.     It  begins  as  follows : — 

"  In  13-16  it  is  not  apparent  in  what  way  the  anger  of  the  Lobd 
expresses  itself  against  the  reluctance  of  Moses.  It  is  believed,  there- 
fore, that  this  is  really  a  later  insertion  to  prepare  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  Aaron,  for  whom  a  place  had  to  be  found  in  the  story.  The 
want  of  uniformity  in  his  appearances,  the  curious  alternation  be- 
tween plural  and  singular  verbs  in  the  immediate  context  of  his  en- 
try into  the  narrative  (cp  viii  8,  12a,  25,  28  ix  27  x  16,  17b  with  viii 
9,  12b,  29  ix  33  x  7a,  18),  and  the  fact  that  in  the  earliest  extant 
account  of  the  sanctuary  he  had  no  function,  Joshua  being  the 
servitor  of  Moses  in  the  Tent  of  Meeting  Ex  xxxiii  11,  render  It 
probable  that  the  passages  narrating  his  activity  are  all  secondarj- 
as  compared  with  the  original  J."     (Vol.  ii.  p.  85.) 

^Cp.  also  Aaron's  presence  in  Exodus  xix.  24  (E),  etc. 


Q^  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

The  anger  of  the  Lord  will  be  seen  to  express  itself  quite 
clearly  in  the  rebuke  to  Moses.  The  "want  of  uniformity" 
in  Aaron's  appearances  is  made  perfectly  clear  by  the  narra- 
tive itself.  Throughout  Moses  was  in  the  position  of  God 
to  Aaron,  who  played  a  very  subsidiary  role,  and  in  these  cir- 
cumstances an  ancient  Hebrew  could  see  no  inconsistency  in 
using  singular  and  plural  almost  indifferently.  A  very  curious 
illustration  is  to  be  found  in  vii.  8  f.,  attributed  to  P,  who  is 
supposed  to  exalt  Aaron.  God  says  to  the  brothers,  "  When 
Pharaoh  shall  speak  unto  you,  saying.  Show  a  wonder  for  you; 
then  thou  shalt  say  unto  Aaron."  It  would  be  difficult  to  con- 
vey a  more  vivid  conception  of  the  relationship  between  the 
two  or  its  effect  on  the  mode  of  expression  than  is  here  af- 
forded. A  parallel  instance  is  provided  by  the  plural  in  Deu- 
teronomy xxxi.  19,  in  "  Write  ye  this  song  for  you,  and  teach 
thou  it  the  children  of  Israel,"  spoken  (16)  to  Moses,  and 
again  puzzles  Mr.  Carpenter,  who  appears  to  be  out  of  sym- 
pathy with  Hebrew  methods  of  thought  and  expression  in 
this  matter.  Nevertheless  he  raises  no  objection  to  the 
similar  alternations  of  singular  and  plural  in  Gen.  xix.  17-19. 

The  alleged  *'  fact  that  in  the  earliest  extant  account  of  the 
sanctuary  "  Aaron  "  had  no  function "  needs  further  investi- 
gation, for  it  supplies  one  of  the  most  convincing  examples  of 
the  wholly  unscientific  procedure  of  the  critics. 

THE   MINISTRY   OF   THE   SANCTUARY. 

Perhaps  the  clearest  account  of  Mr.  Carpenter's  views  as 
to  this  is  to  be  found  in  his  note  on  xxxiii.  7  (p.  133).  "  Fur- 
ther, it  [i.e.  the  Tent  of  Meeting]  is  not  served  by  the  Levit- 
ical  priesthood,  but  by  the  Ephraimite  Joshua  11  Num  xi  28, 
whose  presence  in  the  Dwelling  would  have  been  forbidden 
under  pain  of  death."     Reading  this  with  the  statement  al- 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  67 

ready  quoted  that  in  the  earliest  extant  account  of  the  sanc- 
tuary Aaron  had  no  function,  it  would  seem  that  Mr.  Carpen- 
ter holds  either  that  the  Aaronic  and  the  Levitical  priesthood 
was  not  recognized  in  E,  or  else  that  it  was  in  some  way  diifer- 
ent  from  that  of  P.  We  say  advisedly  "  it  would  seem/'  be- 
cause there  is  considerable  difficulty  in  ascertaining  Mr.  Car- 
penter's meaning,  owing  to  the  inveterate  higher  critical  habit 
of  self-contradiction.  On  page  114  of  Volume  I.,  we  read, 
''  The  Tent  of  Meeting,  however,  when  first  instituted,  needed 
the  service  of  no  sacred  tribe.  It  was  not  even  placed  under 
the  care  of  Aaron  and  his  sons.  An  Ephraimite,  Moses'  min- 
ister, the  young  Joshua,  was  installed  as  its  guardian ;  and  when 
Moses  returned  into  the  camp,  Joshua  remained  within  the 
Tent.  Neverthless  E  does  apparently  contain  traces  of  an 
Aaronic  priesthood  in  the  statement  that  on  Aaron's  death 
at  Moserah,  Eleazar  his  son  succeeded  him  in  the  priestly 
office  Deut  x  6." 

What  Mr.  Carpenter  means  by  saying  in  one  place  that  "  in 
the  earliest  extant  account  of  the  sanctuary  Aaron  had  no 
function,"  and  in  another  that  the  same  document  contains 
traces  of  an  Aaronic  priesthood,  we  cannot  understand.  But 
his  idea  that  Joshua's  presence  in  the  Dwelling  when  first 
instituted  would  have  been  forbidden  under  the  laws  of  P  is 
flatly  contradicted  by  the  language  of  that  document.  In 
Numbers  xviii.  22  we  read,  "Aind  the  children  of  Israel  shall 
not  come  nigh  any  more  to  the  Tent  of  Meeting."  No  doubt 
this  refers  primarily  to  xvii.  13  (Heb.  28),  but  it  would  seem 
from  these  passages  that  the  law  was  thought  to  be  less 
stringent  before  Korah's  rebellion.  Even  assuming,  there- 
fore, that  the  Tent  in  which  Joshua  remained  was  in 
fact  a  "  sanctuary," — which  we  take  leave  to  doubt, — and 
identical  with  the  Dwelling  which  had  not  yet  been  construct- 


68  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticis7n. 

ed,  it  does  not  appear  that  E  necessarily  conflicts  with  P  in 
this  respect — even  for  those  who  would  not  admit  that  Joshua 
as  the  minister  of  Moses  probably  enjoyed  some  exceptional 
privileges. 

In  order,  however,  to  make  it  clear  that  no  priesthood  save 
that  of  Aaron  and  the  tribe  of  Levi  is  recog-nized  by  E,  we 
propose  to  go  somewhat  more  fully  into  the  matter.  We  shall 
examine,  first,  the  historical  position  postulated  for  E;  sec- 
ondly, the  evidence  of  E  as  to  the  priesthood ;  thirdly,  its  evi- 
dence as  to  Joshua. 

Mr.  Carpenter,  with  considerable  hesitation,  ascribes  the 
reduction  of  E  to  writing  to  the  first  half  of  the  eighth  century 
B.C.  (vol.  i.  p.  119).  Now  there  are  abundant  traces  of  the 
sacerdotal  character  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  and  the  house  of 
Aaron  in  the  books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings.  Micah's 
Levite  (Judges  xvii.),  the  house  of  Eli,  Zadok  and  Abiathar 
' — to  mention  no  other  instances — all  bear  witness  to  the  un- 
soundness of  any  theory  that  might  seek  to  throw  doubts  on 
the  ministry  of  the  sacred  tribe  and  the  family  of  Aaron. 

But  the  evidence  of  E  itself  is  still  more  interesting.  Ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Carpenter,  Deuteronomy  x.  6,  with  its  uncom- 
promising statement  that  "  Eleazar  his  son  ministered  in  the 
priest's  office  in  his  [Aaron's]  stead,"  must  be  assigned  to  this 
document.  The  blessing  of  Moses  was  also  **  incorporated  " 
in  E,  and  there  we  read,  "And  of  Levi  he  said,  Thy  Thummim 
and  thy  Urim  are  with  thy  godly  one.  .  .  .  They  shall  put  in- 
cense before  thee,  and  whole  burnt-oflfering  upon  thine  altar  " 
(Deut.  xxxiii.  8,  10).  Of  these  passages  Mr.  Carpenter  does 
indeed  seem  to  have  been  dimly  conscious,  but  there  are  others 
that  he  has  entirely  forgotten.  The  book  of  Joshua,  it  will  be 
remembered,  is  ascribed  to  the  same  sources  as  the  Pentateuch, 
and  accordingly  E  figures  there  also.     The  information  that 


Essays  in  Pentatenchal  Criticism.  69 

may  be  gathered  from  a  perusal  of  its  fragments  is  singularly 
unfavorable.  In  iii.  3  we  read,  "  When  ye  see  the  ark  ....  and 
the  priests  the  Levites  bearing  it."  True,  Mr.  Carpenter  re- 
miembers  to  assign  "  the  Levites  "  to  a  redactor,  but  even  that 
does  not  dispose  of  the  a\vl<:ward  fact  that  the  narrative  of  E 
here  recognizes  priests  other  than  the  Ephraimite  Joshua 
(who  is  sharply  distinguished  from  them),  and  that  these 
priests  have  the  custody  of  the  ark.  In  verse  6  we  read,  "  and 
Joshua  spake  unto  the  priests,  saying,  Take  up  the  ark  .... 
and  they  took  up  the  ark."  In  14  we  hear  again  of  "  the 
priests  that  bare  the  ark."  Again  and  again  this  representa- 
tion of  the  priests  recurs  (see  Joshua  vi.  4-9,  12b,  13,  20b). 
Finally  it  is  E  that  in  the  last  verse  of  the  book  narrates  the 
death  of  Eleazar  the  son  of  Aaron. 

It  is  in  the  light  of  these  facts  that  we  turn  to  see  what  the 
representations  of  E  as  to  the  alleged  "  ministry  "  of  the  Eph- 
raimite Joshua  really  are.  It  does  not  appear  that  he  was  ever 
in  charge  of  the  ark  or  performed  any  sacrificial  function  what- 
ever, nor  did  he  ''serve"  the  Tent.  The  whole  case  amounts 
to  this.  In  Exodus  xxxiii.  7,  before  the  ark  was  in  existence, 
Moses  takes  a  tent  and  pitches  it  without  the  camp  for  hinu- 
self  (so  the  Hebrew;  see  Van  Hoonacker,  Sacerdoce  levitique, 
p.  146,  note).  This  appears  to  have  been  a  practice — not  an 
isolated  act — and  from  verse  11  we  learn  that  Joshua  re- 
mained there  when  Moses  returned,  as  minister  of  Moses,  not 
as  performing  any  priestly  function.  On  another  occasion 
Moses  and  a  number  of  elders  were  near  "  the  Tent  "  when 
Joshua  made  an  observation  (Num.  xi.  28).  We  shall  con- 
sider what  this  Tent  was  when  we  come  to  discuss  the  Tent 
of  Meeting.^  In  this  connection  we  are  only  concerned  with 
Joshua.  It  does  not  appear  that  he  was  apart  from  the  elders 
^See  infra,  pp.  97-100,  106-107. 


70  Essays  in  Fentateuchal  Criticism. 

or  that  he  had  any  functions  to  perform  except  to  act  as  the 
"  minister  of  Moses,"  in  which  capacity  he  would  seem  to  have 
been  present  (ver.  28).  But  there  is  yet  another  passage  in  E 
(Deut.  xxxi.  14  f.),  and,  as  Van  Hoonacker  has  acutely 
pointed  out  (Sacerdoce  levitique,  p.  147,  note),  Joshua,  so  far 
from  being  permanently  installed  in  the  Tent,  is  summoned 
thither  together  with  Moses.  It  is  therefore  patent  that  there 
is  no  justification  whatever  for  holding  that  the  ministry  of  any 
"  sanctuary  "  was  ever  intrusted  to  the  Ephraimite  Joshua,  or 
for  throwing  doubt  on  the  priestly  character  of  the  family  of 
Aaron  and  the  Levites  in  E.  The  passages  relating  to  the 
Tent  of  Meeting  will  be  considered  later,^  but  it  is  already  ap- 
parent that  they  afford  no  foundation  for  Mr.  Carpenter's 
remarks  as  to  Joshua. 

We  return  to  the  early  chapters  of  Exodus.  The  next  al- 
leged criterion  for  the  partition  of  these  chapters  is  to  be  found 
in  the  rod. 

THE  ROD. 

Mr.  Carpenter's  charge  on  this  runs  as  follows : — 

"  The  rod  was  one  of  the  ancient  elements  of  the  tradition.  Here 
it  is  represented  as  the  shepherd's  staff  which  was  naturally  in 
Moses'  hands,  and  it  becomes  the  medium  of  the  display  of  the  di- 
vine power  to  him.  In  E  it  is  apparently  given  him  by  God  17,  and 
consequently  bears  the  name  '  rod  of  God '  20b  (cp  *  mountain  of 
God')  :  as  such,  it  is  the  instrument  with  which  Moses  achieves  the 
wonders  vii  20b  ix  23  x  13.  P  transfers  the  rod  to  Aaron,  and  sup- 
plies a  different  occasion  for  its  conversion  into  a  serpent  cp  vii  8- 
13."     (Vol.  ii.  p.  84,  note  on  Exodus  iv.  2.) 

We  begin  by  disposing  of  Mr.  Carpenter's  comparison. 
We  set  out  in  the  form  of  a  syllogism  the  reasoning  which 
alone  could  give  it  cogency : — 

(a)  "Mountain  of  God "  can  only  mean  mountain  given 
by  God : 

» See  infra,  pp.  93-100,  106-107. 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  71  • 

(b)  Mutatis  mutandis,  "rod  of  God"  can  only  mean  the 
same  thing  as  "  mountain  of  God  "  : 

(c)  Therefore  "  rod  of  God  "  can  only  mean  rod  given  by 
God. 

If  for  any  reason  the  premises  be  rejected — and  we  imag- 
ine that  it  will  be  difficult  to  find  anybody  to  adopt  them — 
the  conclusion  falls  to  the  ground.  Obviously  "  rod  of  God  " 
means  nothing  of  the  sort.  It  is  merely  a  convenient  expres- 
sion for  designating  the  rod  which  had  been  the  instrument  of 
a  miracle.  As  to  the  words  "  take  this  rod  "  in  verse  17,  nobody 
who  reads  the  narrative  of  this  chapter  continuously  would  un- 
derstand this  as  referring  to  some  rod  that  was  given.  The 
phrase  is  an  entirely  natural  designation  of  the  rod  referred  to 
in  verses  1-3,  and  it  requires  a  very  captious  reader  indeed  to 
misunderstand  it. 

Nevertheless,  Mr.  Carpenter  is  so  firmly  convinced  that  this 
rod  must  have  been  given  by  God  and  was  not  identical  with 
the  rod  which  had  been  turned  into  a  snake,  that  in  vii.  15  (E) 
he  assigns  the  words  ''  which  was  turned  to  a  serpent "  to  a 
harmonist,  and  justifies  himself  thus :  '*  A  final  harmonistic 
effort  (15)  identified  the  'rod  of  God'  which  was  expressly 
given  to  Moses  for  the  purpose  of  working  the  signs  (E)  iv 
17,  30b,  with  his  own  shepherd's  staff  (J)  which  had  been 
turned  into  a  snake  iv  2  if."  (Vol.  ii.  p.  89.)  As  there  is  not 
a  particle  of  evidence  for  the  alleged  gift,  the  remarks  about 
the  "  final  harmonistic  effort "  may  reasonably  afford  much 
amusement. 

But  then  Mr.  Carpenter  further  alleges  that  "  P  transfers 
the  rod  to  Aaron."  So  does  J.  In  iv.  30  we  read,  "  Aaron 
spake  all  the  words  which  the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  Moses, 
and  did  the  signs  in  the  sight  of  the  people."  And  Mr.  Car- 
penter gets  out  of  the  difficulty  only  by  invoking  his  never- 


72  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

failing  help  in  time  of  woe — the  redactor — to  conjure  away 
"  Moses  "  and  "  Aaron."  It  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that  he  is 
here  influenced  by  the  theory  which  we  have  already  exam- 
ined, that  Aaron  was  originally  omitted  altogether  from  these 
narratives. 

There  is  in  fact  one  difficulty  connected  with  the  rod;  but, 
as  that  occurs  in  the  narrative  of  the  plagues,  it  will  be  better 
to  postpone  its  discussion.^ 

THE  PLAGUES. 

We  begin  the  consideration  of  this  topic  with  an  extract 

from  a  paper  by  the  late  W.  H.  Green. 

"  In  reality,  however,  the  plagues  form  a  symmetrical  and  regu- 
larly unfolding  scheme,  as  they  stand  in  the  record,  without  any  con- 
fusion or  derangement.  The  first  nine  plagues  spontaneously  divide 
themselves  into  three  series  of  three  each. 

1.  (1)  blood,  vii.  14-25.  (4)  flies,  viii.  16-28.  (7)  hail,  ix.  13-35. 

2.  (2)  frogs,  vii.  26-viii.  11.''  (5)  murrain,  ix.  1-7.  (8)  locusts,  x.  1-20. 

3.  (3)  lice.  viii.  12-15.  \  6)  boils,  ix.  8-12.  (9)  darkness,  x.  21-27. 

"  In  each  series  the  first  and  second  are  announced  beforehand ; 
the  third  is  sent  without  warning.  The  regularly  repeated  formula 
in  the  first  is  with  slight  variations :  'And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  Rise  up  early  in  the  morning  and  stand  before  Pharaoh, — 
lo :  he  Cometh  forth  to  the  water, — and  say  unto  him,  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  (the  God  of  the  Hebrews),  Let  my  people  go  that  they  may 
serve  me ;  and  if  thou  wilt  not  let  my  people  go,  behold  I '.  .  .  . 

"  The  second  of  each  series  is  introduced  thus :  'And  the  Lord 
said  unto  Moses,  Go  in  unto  Pharaoh  and  say  unto  him,  Thus  saith 
the  Lord  (the  God  of  the  Hebrews),  Let  my  people  go  that  they  may 
serve  me ;  and  if  thou  refuse  to  let  them  go,  behold  I '.  .  .  . 

"  While  the  first  in  each  series  was  thus  pre-annouuced  to  the  king 
by  the  river's  side,  and  the  second  in  his  palace,  the  third  was 
wrought  without  premonition,  the  Lord  simply  giving  directions  to 
Moses  or  to  Moses  and  Aaron. 

"This  orderly  arrangement  of  the  plagues  is  rendered  still  more 
significant  by  their  number,  which  cannot  be  merely  the  accidental 
result  of  combining  separate  accounts,  which  differ  both  in  the  num- 
ber of  the  plagues  and  in  the  substance  of  the  plagues  themselves. 

^  See  infra,  p.  77. 

*In  A.  V.  viii.  1-15,  with  a  corresponding  change  in  the  verses 
throughout  chap.  viii. 


Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism.  73 

Nine  follow  in  immediate  succession,  ttiree  times  three,  suggestive 
of  the  three  degrees  of  comparison,  each  series  rising  to  a  climax, 
the  final  series  the  climax  of  all  that  preceded;  and  these  are  but 
the  prelude  to  the  tenth,  which  seals  the  completeness  of  the  whole, 
like  the  ten  digits  and  the  ten  commandments."  (Hebraica,  vol.  vii. 
pp.  131-132.) 

Mr.  Carpenter's  introductory  note  on  the  subject  begins  as 

follows : — 

"  The  narrative  of  the  wonders  vii  8-xi  10  is  plainly  composite. 
Various  reasons  unite  to  enforce  this  conclusion ;  the  following  analy- 
sis is  founded  on  two  broad  classes  of  evidence,  (a)  material  dif- 
ferences of  representation,  and  (/3)  accompanying  peculiarities  of 
phraseology.  (1)  Scattered  through  the  record  occur  short  sections 
of  which  vii  8-13  is  the  type.  They  are  based  on  the  idea  of  '  show- 
ing a  wonder '  vii  9.  Moses  receives  the  divine  command,  and  trans- 
mits it  to  Aaron,  who  executes  it  with  his  rod :  the  magicians  of 
Egypt  then  attempt  to  produce  the  same  marvel,  at  first  with  suc- 
cess, but  afterwards  impotently :  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  is  strong,  and 
he  will  not  listen.  These  common  marks  unite  the  following  pas- 
sages :  vii  8-13,  19-20a,  22  viii  5-7,  15b,  16-19  ix  8-12.  They  are  un- 
connected by  any  marks  of  time;  they  constitute  a  succession  of 
displays  of  power  increasing  in  force  until  the  editorial  close  in  xi  10. 
Their  recurring  phrases  (see  the  margins),  the  peculiar  relation  of 
Moses  and  Aaron  cp  vii  1  f,  the  prominence  assigned  to  Aaron  as  the 
agent  of  the  wonders  with  his  rod  cp  Num  xvii  8,  while  elsewhere  the 
wonder  is  wrought  by  Moses  with  his  rod,  justify  the  ascription  of 
these  passages  to  P.  Some  points  of  linguistic  affinity  with  JE  are 
of  course  inevitable,  in  travelling  over  so  much  common  ground." 
(Vol.  ii.  p.  88.) 

Reserving  for  the  present  the  alleged  literary  evidence,  we 
proceed  to  investigate  Mr.  Carpenter's  grave  misrepresenta- 
tions on  the  other  points. 

First,  it  is  quite  untrue  that  any  of  the  passages  cited,  ex- 
cept vii.  8-12,  "  is  based  on  the  idea  of  showing  a  wonder." 
In  that  passage  Pharaoh  asks  for  a  wonder.  There  is  not  the 
slightest  hint  of  anything  of  the  kind  in  the  other  passages. 
Moreover,  vii.  9  contemplates  the  showing  of  a  single  w'onder, 
not  of  five. 

Secondly,  the  allegation  that  in  all  these  passages  "  Moses 


74  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

receives  the  divine  command  and  transmits  it  to  Aaron,  who 
executes  it  with  his  rod,"  is  also  false.  In  ix.  8-12  the  com- 
mand is  given  not  to  Moses,  but  to  Moses  and  Aaron.  It  is 
not  transmitted  to  Aiaron,  nor  is  it  executed  by  him,  nor  does 
his  rod  enter  into  the  action. 

Thirdly,  the  magicians  of  Egypt  are  not  here  stated  to  liave 
attempted  to  produce  the  same  marvel. 

The  relation  of  Moses  and  Aaron  has  already  been  dis- 
cussed. 

It  may  therefore  be  confidently  said  that  this  portion  of  the 
analysis  cannot  be  supported.  Mr.  Carpenter's  note  on  vii.  8 
then  proceeds  to  effect  the  division  between  J  and  E,  partly  on 
the  ground  of  the  alleged  distinction  between  Goshen  and 
Egypt  (already  considered),  and  partly  on  the  ground  that 
in  some  passages  Moses  wields  a  rod  and  in  others  he  does 
not.  He  writes :  "  Again  the  agency  by  which  the  plagues 
are  successively  induced,  varies  on  different  occasions.  In 
one  series  Moses  simply  announces  to  Pharaoh  the  divine  in- 
tention, but  in  another  he  is  directed  to  stretch  out  his  hand 
that  the  visitation  may  follov^  ix  22  x  12,  21  (cp  ix  29,  33). 
The  hand  of  Moses  wields  the  rod  ix  23  x  13  cp  22  vii  20b, 
apparently  the  rod  of  iv  17  expressly  given  to  him  for  the  pur- 
pose "  [ !].  That  is  to  say,  no  discrepancy  is  alleged,  but  in  Mr. 
Carpenter's  opinion  it  was  impossible  for  either  J  or  E  to  com- 
pose a  narrative  relating  a  succession  of  plagues,  some  of 
.which  were  initiated  in  one  way  and  some  in  another.  This 
was  quite  possible  for  P,  who  is  allowed  to  tell  of  a  number 
of  signs  that  were  initiated  by  Aaron's  rod,  and  also  of  one 
that  was  begun  by  the  action  of  Moses  in  casting  handfuls  of 
dust  to  heaven ;  but  J  and  E  are  not  as  P  and  must  not  be  al- 
lowed the  same  license.  Besides,  Mr.  Carpenter  did  not  really 
allow  P  to  do  this.    He  shut  his  eyes  to  P's  actions  and  al- 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  75 

leged  that  he  had  done  something  else.  Hence  he  cannot  con- 
ceive such  conduct  in  J  or  E. 

With  regard  to  "  the  rod  of  iv  17  expressly  given  to  him 
for  the  purpose  "  we  must  recall  the  fact  that  Mr.  Carpenter 
is  able  to  make  this  out  only  by  banishing  from  vii.  15  the 
phrase  which  proves  this  to  be  the  rod  that  was  turned  into  a 
serj>ent.  We  have  already  discussed  the  alleged  gift,  but  we 
have  now  to  see  how  the  rod  is  eliminated  from  J.  Mr.  Car- 
penter continues:  "The  coincidence  of  (i)  [i.e.  the  presence 
in  Egypt,  not  Goshen]  and  (ii)  [i.e.  the  rod]  in  x  21-23  se- 
cures all  the  rod-passages  to  E.  It  will  be  noticed  that  these 
contain  no  mention  of  Aaron ;  Moses  throughout  appears 
alone;  act  after  act  follows  without  recorded  speech."  We 
have  already  dealt  with  the  presence  of  Aaron  in  E.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  the  assignment  of  the  rod-passages  to  E  rests 
on  nothing  more  secure  than  the  theory  that  residence  in  Go- 
shen excludes  the  proximity  of  Egyptians.  It  need  only  be 
added  that  the  other  statements  are  simply  due  to  the  arbitrary 
division  adopted.  Thus  x.  28  f.  are  assigned  to  J  without  so 
much  as  a  pretense  that  there  is  any  reason  for  it,  though  the 
preceding  verse  is  given  to  E.  Any  narrative  in  the  world 
could  be  divided  on  these  principles. 

It  remains  to  notice  the  other  points  as  to  material  repre- 
sentation on  the  narrative  of  the  plagues.  We  read  in  vii.  25, 
"  And  seven  days  were  fulfilled,  after  that  the  Lord  had  smit- 
ten the  river."  On  the  strength  of  this,  Mr.  Carpenter  writes 
as  follows  in  his  note  on  14a :  "  In  the  formula  '  Thus  saith 
the  Lord  ....  Behold  I  will  smite,'  the  Lord  is  obviously  the 
subject  of  the  verb  cpviiilf,  20f  ixl3, 18  x  3  f ,  and  it  is 
plain  from  25  that  the  writer  conceived  of  the  Lord  as  him- 
self smiting  the  river  [!],  with  the  result  that  the  fish  died 
(18,   21),   and   the   Egyptians    could   not   drink   the   water." 


76  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

(Vol.  ii.  p.  89.)    And  this  man  apparently  conceives  that  he 
is  qualified  to  act  as  a  literary  critic ! 

The  next  point  is  not  less  marvelous.  In  ix.  6  we  read  that 
"all  the  cattle  of  Egypt  died."  By  the  context  (verse  3)  this 
is  in  effect  limited  to  the  cattle  in  the  field,  but  Mr.  Carpenter 
is  not  in  the  habit  of  attending  to  the  context  of  any  state- 
ment, and  it  pleases  him,  moreover,  to  treat  "  all  "  as  a  mathe- 
matical term.  Therefore  on  19  he  gravely  prints  the  follow- 
ing :  "  According  to  ix  6  '  the  cattle  of  Egypt '  are  already 
all  dead,  and  in  25b,  consequently,  the  destructive  effect  of  the 
hail  is  limited  to  trees  and  herbs  [Mr.  Carpenter  achieves  this 
by  giving  the  first  half  of  25  to  E  and  the  second  to  J].  The 
prediction  of  the  death  of  the  cattle  which  should  be  exposed 
to  the  storm,  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  an  editorial 
afterthought  in  reference  to  25a."  And  on  verse  22 :  "  When 
it  is  further  added  *  that  there  may  be  hail  on  man  and  upon 
beast  throughout  the  land  of  Egypt,'  it  becomes  plain  that  this 
passage  cannot  proceed  from  the  writer  of  6 !  "  Hence  again 
in  xi  5  we  are  told  that  "and  all  the  firstborn  of  cattle"  is  "prob- 
ably a  late  editorial  addition.  The  *  cattle '  of  Egypt  {r\:i\>j::i) 
had  already  been  killed  ix  6 ;  the  term  here  employed,  *  beast,' 
as  in  xiii  12,  15,  suggests  the  presence  of  the  harmonizer,  anx- 
ious to  find  a  basis  for  legal  usage  in  the  sacred  tradition." 
(Vol.  ii.  p.  96.)  Similarly  with  xii.  29.  We  are  surprised  that 
Mr.  Carpenter  does  not  on  the  same  principle  argue  that  ix. 
14  must  relate  to  the  introduction  of  the  story  of  the  plagues 
on  the  ground  that  God  speaks  of  sending  "  all  "  his  plagues. 
Similarly  Dr.  G.  B.  Gray  argues  that  Numbers  xxxi.  must  be 
unhistorical,  because  (amongst  other  reasons)  "if  it  were 
historical,  then,  since  every  male  Midianite  was  slain,  Midian 
must  have  disappeared  from  history  in  the  time  of  Moses ;  and 
this  conclusion  would  conflict  with  the  prominent  part  played 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  77 

by  Midian  in  the  Book  of  Judges  (vi.-viii.),  not  to  speak  of 
later  references  [!]."  (Numbers,  pp.  418-419.)  And  Dr. 
Baentsch,  the  author  of  another  higher  critical  commentary  on 
Numbers,  thinks  it  necessary  to  point  out  solemnly  on  verse 
7  (every  male),  that,  according  to  verse  17,  the  male  children 
were  not  included  in  this !  We  can  only  express  the  hope  that 
a  time  may  come  when  some  sympathy  with  the  Hebrew  ge- 
nius and  its  methods  of  expression  may  be  deemed  an  indis- 
pensable precondition  to  the  task  of  producing  a  commentary 
on  a  Hebrew  book. 

There  thus  remains  one  difficulty  in  the  narrative  of  the 
plagues.  In  Exodus  vii.  17  God  in  speaking  to  Moses  com- 
mands him  to  say,  "Behold  I  will  smite  with  the  rod 
that  is  in  ifidne  hand  " ;  whereas,  in  19,  He  says,  "  Say  unto 
Aaron,  Take  thy  rod,"  etc.  The  passages  are  certainly  not 
incapable  of  being  harmonized,  but  there  is  perhaps  a  little 
awkwardness  in  the  phrase  "  take  thy  rod,"  which  would  dis- 
appear if,  for  example,  "  take  the  rod  "  could  be  read.  It  is 
of  course  not  impossible  that  there  is  some  slight  corruption 
in  the  text,  and  that  it  has  been  emended  on  the  basis  of  verse 
8,  where  the  phrase  is  decidedly  in  place;  but  no  variant  is 
recorded  in  Kittel's  "  Biblia  Hebraica."  The  editions  of  the 
Septuagint  by  Swete  and  Lagarde  give  no  help:  and  the 
Samaritan  text  is  here  manifestly  inferior.  On  the  whole, 
we  are  of  the  opinion  that  different  minds  will  be  likely  to 
take  different  views,  some  holding  that  the  text  is  correct  as 
it  stands,  while  others  may  favor  some  hypothesis  of  corrup- 
tion. In  any  case  the  awkwardness  here  is  the  only  point  we 
have  discovered  in  the  narrative  of  the  plagues  that  can  be 
reasonably  held  to  create  any  difficulty  at  all.^ 

^Part  ii.  of  the  first  vohime  of  the  larger  Cambridge  Septuagint 
now  records  "  the  rod "  as  an  extant  variant,  but  this  need  not 
necessarily  represent  a  different  Hebrew. 


78 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


By  the  means  we  have  considered,  Mr.  Carpenter  produces 
the  following  table  of  the  plagues  (vol.  ii.  p.  89),  which  should 
be  carefully  contrasted  with  Dr.  Green's  table  given  above. 


The     river     smitten, 
death  of  the  fish 
Frogs 

Waters  of  the 
turned  to  blood 

river 
first- 

Aaron's  rod  changed 
to  a  serpent 
Waters      of      Egypt 
turned  to  blood 
Frogs 
Lice 

Flies 
Murrain 

Boils 

Hail 
Locusts 

Hail 
Locusts 
Darkness 
[Death   of  the 
born] 

Death  of  the 
first-born 

Death    of    the    first- 
born 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  no  system  whatever  is  traceable  either 
in  the  number  of  the  plagues,  or  in  the  method  of  their  execu- 
tion or  their  significance,  or  in  the  relation  of  the  documents  to 
one  another.  In  Mr.  Carpenter's  scheme  we  simply  have  aim- 
less collections  of  fragments — nothing  more. 

THE   SO-CALLED    LITERARY   EVIDENCE. 

Nothing  is  more  astonishing  in  the  higher  criticism  than  the 
arguments  which  by  a  desecration  of  language  are  termed 
"  literary."  Literary  criticism  cannot  exist  apart  from  literary 
feeling,  and  it  takes  but  a  very  few  minutes  to  see  that  this 
quality  is  entirely  absent  from  the  higher  critical  work.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  conceive  anything  more  hopelessly  unlit- 
erary  than  the  evidence  produced  under  this  head.  And  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  lists  of  words  adduced  are  furth- 
er vitiated  by  the  characteristics  that  we  have  seen  at  work  in 
the  statements  as  to  material  differences — the  lack  of  care,  ac- 
curacy, thoroughness,  judgment,  and  impartiality  that  consti- 
tute the  outstanding  features  of  all  the  higher  critical  work. 
Opening  Volume  I.  of  the  Oxford  Hexateuch  at  random  at 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  79 

tlie  lists  of  words,  we  take  two  or  three  instances  from  the  page 
(187)  oil)  wthich  we  happened  to  light.  The  phrases  are  al- 
leged to  be  characteristic  of  J : — No.  34,  "  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey  " — said  to  be  used  8  times  by  J,  7  times  by  D  and 
once  by  V^  (the  Holiness  legislation — a  separate  code  now 
incorporated  in  P)  ;  No.  36,  "  from  the  time  that,"  4  J,  1  R<i; 
No.  38,  "  to  do  good,"  0  J,  2  E,  10  D,  2  P ;  and  so  on.  This 
sort  of  thing  is  mere  trifling.  If  a  phrase  can  be  nsied  by  any 
two  or  three  or  four  of  the  alleged  documents  and  redactors, 
it  is  obvious  that  there  is  nothing  distinctive  about  it.  And  in 
estimating  these  lists  other  considerations  must  also  be  borne 
in  mind.  It  quite  frequently  happens  that  the  division  of  the 
documents  by  various  critics  is  not  identical.  In  such  cases 
the  lists  of  words  break  down.  Again,  there  is  much  circular 
reasoning.  The  critics  will  say  that  a  particular  source  uses  a 
given  word,  and  adduce,  in  triumphant  justification  of  their 
dictum,  passages  which  have  been  attributed  to  that  source 
only  on  the  ground  of  the  occurrence  of  this  very  word.  To 
take  an  illustration :  in  Exodus  iii.  19  we  find  a  particular  use 
of  the  infinitive.  This  is  assigned  by  the  editors  of  the  new 
English  edition  of  Gesenius's  Hebrew  lexicon  to  J,  but  by  Mr. 
Carpenter  to  a  redactor  on  the  ground  partly  that  this  is  an 
E  phrase.  Then  this  phrase  is  quoted  in  the  E  list  of  words  to 
distinguish  E  from  other  documents.  Moreover,  redactors  are 
l>erpetually  called  in  to  account  for  unpleasant  facts.  Indeed, 
it  may  safely  be  said  that  the  allegations  as  to  the  literary  evi- 
dence are  quite  as  unreliable  as  the  other  assertions  of  the 
critics.  We  have  recently  treated  of  the  question  at  some 
length  in  the  Princeton  Theological  Review  for  October,  1907, 
and  we  do  not  propose  to  enter  at  all  fully  into  the  matter  in 
these  essays,  but  Mr.  Carpenter's  table  in  the  note  on  vii.  8 
may  be  given  as  a  fair  example. 


80 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


B 


Pharaoh  '  refuses  to 
let  the  people  go' 
vii  14  viii  2  ix  2  x  4. 
♦The  LoED,  God  of 
the  Hebrews,'  vii  16 
Ix  1,  13  X  3. 
♦Let  my  people  go 
that  they  may  serve 
me '  vii  16  viii  1, 
20     ix    1,    13    X    3. 

♦  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  .  .  .  Behold  I 
will  .  .  .'  vii  17  viii 
1  f,  20f  ix  1  (3),  13, 
18   X  3  f . 

♦  Intreat  the  Loed  ' 
viii  8.  28  ix  28   x  17. 

♦  Removal  of  the 
plague  viii  8,  31  x 
17  cp  ix  33. 
Marks  of  time  'to- 
morrow' viii  10,  23, 
29  ix  5  f  X  4. 
Unheard  of  charac- 
ter of  the  infliction 
ix  18,  24b  X  6b,  14 
xi  6. 

Pharaoh's  heart 
'stubborn'  (Qal  & 
Hiph)  vii  14  viii 
15,  32  ix  7,  34. 


Moses  stretches  out 
his  hand  with  the 
rod  vii  15,  20b  ix  22 
f  x  12  f ,  21  f. 


'  Say     unto     Aaron ' 
vii  9,  19    viii  5,  16. 
The     magicians     vii 
11,  22  viii  7, 18  ix  11. 


Aaron  stretches  out 
his  hand  with  his 
rod  vii  9,  19  viii  5 
f,  16  f. 

Land  of  Egypt  vii 
19,  21b  viii  5-7,  16  f 
ix  9ab  xii  1,  12  f, 
17,  41  f,  51. 


Pharaoh's  heart 
'strong'  (Qal  & 
Hiph)  ix  35  x  20, 
27. 


Pharaoh's  heart 
'strong'  (Qal  & 
Hiph)  vii  13,  22  viii 
19  (ix  12  Pi). 
And  he  hearkened 
not  as  the  Lord  had 
spoken  vii  10,  13,  22 
viii  15,  19  ix  12. 

Examination  shows  how  purely  factitious  this  list  is.  We 
have  already  seen  that  in  E,  act  is  made  to  follow  act  without 
recorded  speech.  Hence  every  phrase  that  is  natural  in  dia- 
logue must  be  assigned  to  J  or  P.  The  view  taken  by  Mr. 
Carpenter  of  the  relations  of  Moses  and  Aaron  further  enables 
him  to  assign  to  P  phrases  in  which  Aaron  occurs.  And  so 
on.  "  Land  of  Egypt,"  which  is  here  quoted  as  characteristic 
of  P,  is  a  phrase  which  elsewhere  J  and  E  are  permitted  to 
use;  e.g.,  ix.  23b  and  24b  (both  J),  25a  (E),  etc.  Ther.-  is 
nothing  in  this  style  of  argument  that  would  detain  a  man  of 
common  sense  and  ordinary  judgment  for  five  minutes.  At  one 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  81 

moment  Mr.  Carpenter  alleges  that  certain  verses  must  belong 
to  P  because  the  phrase  ''  land  of  Egypt "  occurs,  and  then  in 
the  same  chapter  he  allows  other  verses  to  go  to  other  sources 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  very  same  phrase  is  found  in  them. 
If  higher  critics  regard  this  sort  of  thing  as  convincing,  we 
shall  be  pleased  to  let  them  have  a  monopoly  of  it.  But  we 
have  thought  it  right  to  say  a  few  words  about  this  alleged 
"  literary  method,"  lest  it  should  be  thought  that  it  is  in  any 
way  more  substantial  than  the  rest  of  the  critical  case.  Before 
passing  away  from  it  we  should  like  to  give  a  sample  of  what 
the  critics  are  prepared  to  believe  on  the  strength  of  such  evi- 
dence. The  following  is  the  assignment  of  Exodus  xiii.  3-16 
in  the  Oxford  Hexateuch : — 

EXODUS  XIII. 

3.  J: — And  Moses  said  unto  the  people, 

Harmonizing  addition  t)y  Rje  [i.e.  the  redactor  of  J  and  E]  : — Remem- 
ber this  day  in  which  ye  came  out  from  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of 
bondage;  for  by  strength  of  hand  the  Lord  brought  you  from  this 
place:  there  shall  no  leavened  bread  be  eaten, 

4.  J : — This  day  ye  go  forth  in  the  month  Abib. 

5.  Supplement  l)y  a  writer  of  the  J  School  (Js)  : — And  it  shall  be 
when  the  Lord  shall  bring  thee  into  the  land  of  the  Canaanite,  and 
the  Hittite,  and  the  Amorite,  and  the  Hivite,  and  the  Jebusite,  which 
he  sware  unto  thy  fathers  to  give  thee,  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey,  that  thou  shalt  keep  this  service  in  this  month. 

6.  J : — Seven  days  thou  shalt  eat  unleavened  bread,  and  in  the 
seventh  day  shall  be  a  feast  to  the  Lord. 

7.  Js  [See  5  supra] : — Unleavened  bread  shall  be  eaten  through- 
out the  seven  days;  and  there  shall  no  leavened  bread  be  seen  with 
thee,  neither  shall  there  be  leaven  seen  with  thee,  in  all  thy  borders. 

8.  And  thou  shalt  tell  thy  son  in  that  day,  saying,  it  is  because  of 
that  which  the  Lord  did  for  me  when  I  came  forth  out  of  Egypt. 

9.  A  priestly  redactor  (Rp)  : — And  it  shall  be  for  a  sign  unto  thee 
upon  thine  hand,  and  for  a  memorial  between  thine  eyes,  that  the  law 
of  the  Lord  may  be  in  thy  mouth : 

Rje  [see  supra  3] : — For  with  a  strong  hand  hath  the  Lord  brought 
thee  out  of  Egypt. 
10-13.    J.  14-16.     Rje. 

And  this  is  regarded  as  scholarship! 


CHAPTER  III. 

Inspirited  by  the  remarkable  results  of  their  labors  on  the 
narrative  of  the  plagues,  the  critics  turn  with  zeal  to  the  cross- 
ing of  the  Red  Sea.  "  The  triple  narrative  of  the  plagues/' 
writes  Mr.  Carpenter,  **  raises  the  presumption  that  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Red  Sea  was  also  related  by  all  the  three  documents 
J,  E,  and  P."  (Vol.  ii.  p.  99,  note  on  Exodus  xiii.  17.) 
The  rest  of  this  note  contains  nothing  that  need  detain  us,  be- 
ing devoted  to  phrases  like  "  make  strong  the  heart "  and  sim- 
ilar matters,  but  verse  21  brings  us  to  the  first  appearance , of 
the  pillar  of  cloud,  and  this  is  one  of  the  main  arguments  for 
the  partition  of  the  narrative  of  the  middle  books.  The  Glory 
and  the  position  of  the  Ark  and  the  Tent  of  Meeting  are  neces- 
sarily involved  in  any  discussion  of  the  Cloud,  and  we  pur- 
pose therefore  to  dispose  of  these  topics  without  further  delay. 

THE  CLOUD. 

"  Three  representations  of  the  divine  presence  in  the  cloud  [writes 
Mr.  Carpenter,  on  Ex.  xiii.  21]  are  to  be  found  in  the  Hexateuch. 
In  P  it  covers  the  Dwelling  at  its  consecration  Ex  xl  34  ff  Num  ix 
15  fif,  and  remains  over  the  Tent  of  Meeting  until  it  is  time  for  the 
camp  to  be  moved,  when  it  is  taken  up.  A  second  set  of  passages 
also  connects  it  with  the  Tent  of  Meeting,  but  places  it  at  the  en- 
trance, where  it  come&  down  in  the  form  of  a  pillar  and  remains  in 
converse  with  Moses  Ex  xxxiii  7  f  Num  xii  5  cp  Deut  xxxi  15  :  rea- 
sons will  be  given  hereafter  for  ascribing  these  to  E.     But  in  the 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  83 

text  21  [i.e.  Ex.  xiii.  21] nothing  has  yet  been  said  of  any  sanctu- 
ary; the  pillar  with  its  twofold  aspect  by  day  or  night  serves  an- 
other function,  that  of  guidance  and  protection.  In  xiv  19  two  sym- 
bols, the  angel  of  Elohim,  and  the  pillar,  have  been  combined  by  R. 
As  the  '  angel  of  Elohim '  naturally  belongs  to  E,  the  guardian  pillar 
must  be  regarded  as  the  equivalent  in  J."     (Vol.  ii.  p.  100.) 

That  passage  may  serve  as  an  introduction  to  the  higher  crit- 
ical case.  In  reply  we  intend  to  prove  the  following  points: 
(1)  It  is  not  true  that  in  P  the  cloud  first  makes  its  appear- 
ance at  the  erection  of  the  Dwelling.  On  the  contrary  it  is 
found  before  then  and  in  the  same  position  as  in  J.  (2)  The 
Lord  comes  down  in  a  cloud  in  J  as  well  as  in  E,  but  in  both 
documents  this  is  only  on  certain  occasions.  (3)  Otherwise  E 
locates  the  cloud  in  exactly  the  same  position  as  J.  (4)  The 
discrepancy  between  P  and  JE  can  be  manufactured  only  by 
the  help  of  the  redactor. 

The  pillar  of  cloud  in  Exodus  xiii.  21  and  22  (J)  really  calls 
for  no  remark.  The  passage  is  entirely  suitable  to  the  first  ap- 
pearance of  the  cloud,  and  gives  the  necessary  explanation  of 
its  presence.^  The  next  passage  is  xiv.  19-20.  We  begin  by 
printing  the  portion  assigned  to  E  continuously :  "And  the 
angel  of  God,  which  went  before  the  camp  of  Israel,  removed 
and  went  behind  them ;  .  .  .  and  came  between  the  camp  of 
Egypt  and  the  camp  of  Israel ;  and  there  was  the  cloud  and  the 
darkness."  This  at  once  disposes  of  Mr.  Carpenter's  statement 
that  "  two  symbols,  the  angel  of  Elohim,  and  the  pillar,  have 
been  combined  by  R,"  for  we  see  that  when  E  has  been  disen- 
tangled it  still  recognizes  the  cloud  either  in  addition  to  or  as 
covering  the  angel.  The  representation  is  in  fact  exactly  the 
same  as  in  J  when  we  remember  that  Hebrew  thought  did  not 
always  draw  a  sharp  distinction  between  God  and  his  angel, 

^It  will,  however,  hereafter  be  argued  that  these  verses  should  be 
followed  immediately  by  Exodus  xxxiii.  7-11,  a  passage  which  is  at 
present  out  of  place. 


84  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

the  latter  being  regarded  as  a  manifestation  of  Him.  Many 
commjentators  think  there  is  some  corruption  in  verse  20 ;  but, 
unless  Mr.  Carpenter  can  prove  that  the  angel  did  not  appear 
in  the  cloud, — and  he  is  wise  enough  not  even  to  suggest  this, — 
the  attempt  to  establish  a  discrepancy  between  J  and  E  breaks 
down.  Jt  must  be  conceded  that  these  two  documents  display 
precisely  the  same  conception  of  the  position  of  the  cloud  at 
this  juncture. 

The  next  passage  is  Exodus  xvi.  10  (P).  On  this  Mr.  Car- 
j>enter,  in  his  note  on  verse  2,  writes  as  follows : — 

"  But  the  story  implies  the  existence  of  the  Levitical  Dwelling 
with  the  ark  containing  the  Sacred  Testimony  34.  It  is  not  till  the 
Dwelling  is  completed  that  'the  Glory  of  the  Ix)rd'  (10)  first  ap- 
pears in  the  cloud  cp  xl  34  ff .  .  .  .  Nor  can  the  narrative  be  re- 
lieved of  this  anachronism  by  viewing  33  f  as  a  later  addition.  The 
phrase  in  9  '  come  near  before  the  Lord  '  similarly  describes  attend- 
ance at  the  sanctuary  cp  Lev  ix  5  xvi  1  Num  xviii  22.  The  story, 
then,  in  its  present  form  Implies  the  existence  of  a  centre  of  wor- 
ship which  is  not  yet  constructed,  and  must  have  been  transposed  to 
its  present  place  from  a  later  stage."     (Vol.  ii.  pp.  104,  105.) 

We  confess  that-  in  reading  the  higher  critics  we  often  feel 
how  much  their  writings  would  gain  in  accuracy  if  they  were 
to  be  "  redacted  "  by  somebody  who  treated  them  on  the  prin- 
ciple which  they  apply  to  the  Pentateuch.  It  makes  our  mouth 
water  to  think  how  many  of  Mr.  Carpenter's  most  questionable 
statements  could  be  rendered  quite  defensible  by  such  simple 
expedients  as  the  judicious  insertion  of  negative  adverbs.  Here 
is  an  instance.  Suppose  that  for  "  implies  "  we  write  "  does 
not  imply"  (or,  better  still,  "excludes"),  the  first  portion  of 
the  last  sentence  becomes  absolutely  accurate.  For  what  does 
the  chapter  say?  Moses  tells  Aaron  to  command  the  congre- 
gation to  come  near  before  the  Lord.  If  this  narrative  implied 
the  existence  of  the  sanctuary,  it  is  obvious  that  this  must  have 
directed  their  attention  to  the  center  of  the  camp.     But  it  did 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  65 

nothing  of  the  sort.  The  Israelites — who  appear  not  to  have 
been  informed  that  they  were  in  a  misplaced  passage  of  P — 
were  perverse  enough  to  behave  just  as  if  they  had  been  living 
in  J  or  E.  As  yet  the  only  symbol  of  the  Divine  presence  was 
the  cloud  which  went  before  them  and  had  not  yet  removed  to 
the  Dwelling.  Accordingly  we  are  told  tliat  they  looked  in  the 
direction  of  the  wilderness  (ver.  10).  They  seem  indeed  to 
have  interpreted  the  command  to  come  near  before  the  Lord 
as  referring  to  the  visible  symbol  of  his  presence.  Worse,  still, 
their  perversity  was  rewarded  by  seeing  the  glory  appear  in 
the  cloud.  And  Mr.  Carpenter  does  not  even  consign  "  the 
wilderness  "  to  a  redactor ! 

Dr.  George  Buchanan  Gray  does  not  take  the  matter  so 
quietly.  On  page  154  of  his  volume  on  Numbers,  he  peremp- 
torily orders  his  readers  to  read  "  tabernacle  "  for  "  wilder- 
ness." No  reason  is  assigned  for  the  command — we  think 
wisely. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  the  passage  we  have  quoted  Mr. 
Carpenter  asserts  that  the  story  *''  must  have  been  transposed 
to  its  present  place  from  a  later  stage."  Similarly  Dr.  Gray 
(Numbers,  p.  86)  says:  "  Ex.  xvi  6-10  is  a  misplaced  narra- 
tive." We  have  no  prejudice  against  transpositions — indeed 
we  hope  to  propose  some  on  our  own  account  hereafter :  but 
we  would  suggest  to  these  gentlemen  that  before  putting  for- 
ward their  schemes  in  future  they  should  examine  the  chap- 
ters that  they  desire  to  transpose  for  indicia  of  place.  In  the 
present  instance  the  first  verse  contains  an  important  date — 
the  fifteenth  day  of  the  second  month.  P,  to  whom  this  is  at- 
tributed, does  not  bring  the  children  of  Israel  to  Sinai  until 
the  third  month  (xix.  1).  It  follows  that  he  cannot  have  in- 
tended this  story  to  relate  to  a  subsequent  period.  That  the 
children  of  Israel  should  have  begun  to  live  on  manna  very 


86  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

soon  after  their  departure  from  Egypt  is  so  obviously  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  necessities  of  the  case  that  nobody  would 
ever  have  questioned  the  position  of  the  narrative  but  for  the 
desire  to  manufacture  contradictions. 

It  should  also  be  noticed  that  Mr.  Carpenter's  allegation  that 
"  it  is  not  till  the  dwelling  is  completed  that  the  '  Glory  of  the 
Lord  '  first  appears  in  the  cloud  "  is  quite  incapable  of  being 
supported.  The  glory  is  found  in  the  cloud  over  Sinai  (xxiv. 
16). 

The  reference  to  verse  33  which  commands  the  deposit  of  a 
pot  of  manna  in  the  sanctuary  offers  no  criterion  of  the  date  to 
which  the  narrative  of  the  earlier  portion  of  the  chapter  relates. 
It  is  easily  conceivable  that  either  the  original  historian  or 
(more  probably)  a  subsequent  editor  should  have  here  adopted 
a  topical  order  and  disposed  of  the  divine  command  relating  to 
the  manna. 

As  Dr.  Gray  has  been  mentioned,  we  may  pause  to  correct 
some  of  his  statements.  He  writes  (Numbers,  p.  113)  of  the 
cloud  that,  "  in  both  E  and  P,  as  distinguished  from  J,  it  is 
regularly  associated  with  the  tabernacle."  We  have  seen  that 
this  is  not  true  of  E  before  Sinai,  and  the  present  passage  (as 
also  Ex.  xxiv.)  proves  the  same  of  P.  On  page  86  we  read : 
"  The  cloud,  according  to  P,  first  appeared  at  Sinai.  .  .  .  Before 
reaching  Sinai,  the  Israelites  marched  according  to  the  com- 
mandment of  the  Lord,  Ex.  xvii  1 ;  such  definite  direction  they 
still  required;  for  the  cloud  in  P  does  not,  as  in  J  (Ex.  xiii 
22),  move  at  the  head  of  the  whole  host  to  show  the  way." 
This  statement  as  to  the  position  of  the  cloud  in  P  on  the  march 
is  scarcely  in  harmony  with  Numbers  ix.  17 :  "And  in  the 
place  where  the  cloud  abode,  there  the  children  of  Israel  en- 
camped." This  would  naturally  be  understood  as  meaning 
that  the  cloud  was  in  front  during  the  march. 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  87 

After  Exodus  xvi.  the  cloud  is  next  mentioned  in  connectioa 
with  the  stay  at  Sinai.  In  xix.  9  (E)  we  read:  "Behold,  I 
c»me  unto  thee  in  a  thick  cloud,"  in  verse  16  the  same  writer 
speaks  of  a  thick  cloud,  and  in  xx.  21  he  refers  to  it  as  thick 
darkness.  We  draw  special  attention  to  this,  as  it  disproves 
the  allegation  of  Dr.  G.  B.  Gray  (Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  col. 
3777)  that  "  P  differs  ....  from  both  E  and  J  with  regard  to 
the  form  of  the  phenomenon."  He  explains  this  by  adding: 
"  Not  only  does  P  never  use  the  term  pillar ;  he  speaks  of 
the  cloud  in  ways  which  do  not  suggest,  and  perhaps  exclude 
such  a  form."  Clearly  E  could  do  the  same  on  occasion,  and 
we  shall  see  directly  that  J  also  could. 

Exodus  xxiv.  15b  brings  us  to  what  the  critics  desire  to  re- 
gard as  the  first  mention  of  the  cloud  in  P — for  it  must  be 
remembered  that  Exodus  xvi.  is  "  misplaced."  P  not  unnatur- 
ally begins  by  speaking  of  "  the  cloud  "  as  if  it  had  been  men- 
tioned before.  Mr.  Carpenter  offers  no  explanation  of  this: 
but  to  most  readers  it  will  seem  that  the  article  here  refers  to 
the  last  mention,  which  happens  to  be  in  E. 

In  Exodus  xxxiii.  9  (E)  we  find  the  pillar  of  cloud  descend- 
ing, but  exactly  the  same  conception  appears  in  xxxiv.  5  (J), 
and  in  P  we  also  read  of  the  cloud's  rising  and  descending.  In 
xxxiv.  J  is  actually  thoughtless  enough  to  speak  of  the  cloud — 
not  the  "  pillar."  Yet  Dr.  Gray  writes  in  the  Encyclopaedia 
Biblica :  "  Deuteronomy  i  33  is  dependent  on  J,  though  the 
term  pillar  is  not  used"  (col.  3776).  In  xl.  34  a  late  priestly 
writer  once  more  speaks  of  the  cloud,  and  tells  how  it  came  to 
occupy  a  position  in  the  center  of  the  camp.  So  that,  if  the 
narrative  be  read  continuously,  it  appears  that  J,  E  and  P  all 
agree,  and  that  no  discrepancy  can  be  proved. 

We  shall  consider  together  Numbers  x.  34 :  "Amd  the  cloud 
of  the  Lord  was  over  them  by   day,   when   they   set   forward 


88  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

from  the  camp,"  and  Numbers  xiv.  14 :  "  For  thou,  O  Lord, 
art  seen  face  to  face,  and  thy  cloud  standeth  over  them,  and 
thou  goest  before  them,  in  a  pillar  of  cloud  by  day,  and  in  a 
pillar  of  fire  by  night."  Mr.  Carpenter  deals  with  these  two 
passages,  which  contain  precisely  the  same  idea,  in  the  follow- 
ing manner :  The  first  is  consigned  to  a  late  priestly  stratum. 
The  note  informs  us  that  *'  the  description  of  the  cloud  as 
'  over '  the  advancing  Israelites  at  once  separates  this  state- 
ment from  the  narrative  of  J  in  which  it  is  conceived  as  going 
before  them  xiv  14b  Ex  xiii  21  as  a  pillar.  In  P,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  always  above  them  without  definite  form  cp  ix 
17  ff."  We  have  already  seen  the  cloud  descending  in  J — 
which  implies  elevation — and  we  have  also  found  J  (and  D 
based  on  J)  speaking  of  the  cloud  without  the  word  "  pillar." 
As  to  xiv.  14  Mr.  Carpenter  assigns  the  bulk  of  the  verse  to 
Rje  (i.e.  the  redactor  of  J  and  E),  but  invokes  another  redact- 
or, RP  (i.e.  the  priestly  redactor),  to  redact  the  earlier  redactor, 
and  so  disposes  of  the  words  "  and  thy  cloud  standeth  over 
them,"  alleging,  in  the  note  ad  loc,  that  *'  this  clause  seems  due 
to  a  reminiscence  of  the  account  of  the  Dwelling  in  the  midst 
of  the  camp  and  the  cloud  above  it."  Yet  it  should  be  tolera- 
bly obvious  that  "  standing "  and  "  going  before  "  are  mu- 
tually exclusive,  and  refer  to  the  people  in  camp  and  on  the 
march  respectively. 

We  must  just  mention  that  in  a  late  stratum  of  E  (Num.  xii. 
5)  the  Lord  comes  down  in  a  pillar  of  cloud,  but  in  xii.  10  and 
xi.  25,  "  the  cloud  "  is  spoken  of  in  the  same  stratum  without 
the  word  pillar.    We  need  not  linger  over  any  other  passage. 

To  sum  up.  As  to  the  form :  Both  J  and  E  speak  some- 
times of  the  pillar  and  sometimes  of  the  cloud.  In  Exodus 
xix.  (E)  the  cloud  can  scarcely  have  been  in  the  forni  of  a  pil- 
lar, and  the  representation  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  found 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  89 

more  frequently  in  P.  It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  that  the 
shape  varied  with  the  occasion  in  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole, 
as  it  certainly  did  in  E.  As  to  the  position:  P  and  J  and  E 
place  the  cloud  in  exactly  the  same  position  before  Sinai.  At 
Sinai  it  appears  to  have  been  in  the  first  instance  over  the 
mountain  in  all  the  documents,  but  it  descends  sometimes  for 
Moses.  Accordingly  in  all  three  documents  it  is  high  up  on  nor- 
mal occasions,  that  is  above  the  Israelites.  When  the  Taber- 
nacle is  erected  it  takes  its  normal  position  in  the  center  of  the 
camp  over  the  sanctuary.  In  P  and  J  it  normally  precedes  the 
Israelites  on  the  march  after  Sinai,  but  there  is  no  sufficient 
indication  of  the  exact  form  it  assumes  in  P.  In  all  three  doc- 
uments it  is  normally  high  up  after  Sinai,  but  in  E  it  some- 
times descends.  We  have  seen  it  doing  the  same  in  J,  and  it 
will  be  found  that  it  behaves  likewise  in  Leviticus  xvi.  2  (P). 
But  on  different  occasions  the  descents  occur  in  different 
places.  It  is  of  course  suggested  that  in  E  the  Tent  of  Meet- 
ing stood  outside  the  camp  after  Sinai,  and  that  would  place 
the  cloud  in  a  different  position,  but  we  shall  shortly  see  that 
this  critical  theory  cannot  be  supported  either.^  A  division 
into  discrepant  sources  can  of  course  be  effected  by  the  process 
of  tearing  the  Pentateuch  up  and  dividing  the  shreds  between 
documents,  redactors,  and  redactors  of  redactors;  but  this  ap- 
plies equally  to  any  narrative  in  the  world.  On  the  other  hand 
we  are  bound  to  point  out  that  the  statements  of  Messrs. 
Carpenter  and  Gray  on  the  topics  involved  are  marked  by  a 
recklessness  and  an  inaccuracy  which  may  doubtless  be  paral- 
leled with  supreme  ease  from  almost  any  publication  of  the 

*  Infra,  pp.  98-102.  On  the  other  hand,  it  will  be  argued  that  before 
Sinai  there  was  a  tent  of  meeting  which  was  frequently  placed  out- 
side the  camp,  and  that  it  is  to  this  period  that  Exodus  xxxiii.  7-11 
relates  {infra,  loc.  cit.,  and  pp.  106  f.). 


90  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Wellhausen  school,  but  are  elsewhere  not  common  in  literature 
that  professes  to  be  scholarly. 

THE  GLORY. 

This  is  so  closely  related  to  the  cloud  that  we  take  it  next. 
Dr.  Gray  writes  thus  on  page  154  of  his  commentary  on  Num- 
bers :  "According  to  P,  the  glory  of  the  Lord  was  a  fiery  ap- 
pearance manifesting  the  divine  presence.  .  .  .  P's  conception 
of  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  markedly  different  from  that  of 
other  Hexateuchal  sources."  On  page  158,  in  reference  to 
xiv.  21  (redactor  of  JE),  he  adds:  "Here  and  in  the  next 
verse,  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  the  revelation  of  His  character 
and  power  in  history."  Yet  something  very  like  the  latter  con- 
ception occurs  in  P  also.  In  Exodus  xxix.  43  (P)  the  Hebrew 
has:  "And  it  [Greek  and  Syriac  "I"]  shall  be  sanctified  by 
my  glory."  This  can  hardly  be  the  fiery  appearance.^  On  the 
other  hand,  in  Exodus  xxxiii.  18,  22  (secondary  stratum  of  J) 
it  cannot  be  claimed  that  the  glory  is  a  "  revelation  of  God^s 
character  and  power  in  history."  This  contention,  therefore, 
goes  the  way  of  Dr.  Gray's  other  assertions. 

We  pass  to  a  more  important  matter. 

THE   POSITION   OF  THE  ARK. 

Mr.  Carpenter  has  slightly  modified  the  language  of  one  of 
his  observations  on  this  topic  in  the  "  Composition  of  the  Hex- 
ateuch  "  (1902),  which  is  a  second  edition  of  Volume  I.  of  his 
Hexateuch.  We  therefore  quote  the  later  work.  The  pas- 
sages we  have  to  examine  are  three  in  number. 

^We  think  the  same  applies  to  Exodus  xvi.  7.  The  glory  of  the 
LoBD  is  there  manifested  in  the  morning  by  the  manna.  Perhaps 
verses  9-12  should  stand  before  6-8.  In  that  case  they  would  owe 
their  present  position  to  the  misunderstanding  of  somebody  who 
confused  the  "  glory  "  of  verse  7  with  the  fiery  "  glory  "  of  verse  10, 
and  therefore  thought  that  verse  7  was  a  prediction  of  the  occur- 
rence related  in  verse  10. 


Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism.  91 

(1)  Of  J: — "The  ark  is  mentioned  Num  x  33,  and  appears  (con- 
trary to  E's  view  of  the  sanctuary  chap  xii  §2c)  to  have  been  ha- 
bitually guarded  in  the  centre  of  the  camp  Num  xiv  44."  (Composi- 
tion, p.  183.) 

(2)  Of  E: — "The  Mosaic  sanctuary,  however,  is  of  a  different 
order.  It  is  a  tent,  fit  for  the  conditions  of  nomad  life  in  the  desert, 
pitched  outside  the  camp  xxxiii  7ff,  bearing  the  name  of  the  Tent 
of  Meeting.  ...  It  was  no  doubt  intended  to  enshrine  the  ark,  which 
in  its  turn  held  the  sacred  stones."  (Composition,  p.  209=iHexa- 
teuch,  vol.  i.  p.  114.  This  is  the  passage  referred  to  in  the  last  ex- 
tract as  chap  xii  §2e.) 

(3)  "The  Tent  of  Meeting  is  still  outside  long  after  the  camp 
order  has  been  established  Num  xi  24-30  xii  4.  It  is  in  harmony 
with  this  representation  of  the  isolation  of  the  sanctuary  that  the 
ark  does  not  travel  in  the  midst  of  the  tribes,  but  in  front  of  them 
X  33."     (Composition,  p.  49zz:Hexateuch,  vol.  i.  p.  30.) 

Now  unfortunately  Nunxbers  x.  33  belongs  to  J,  who,  ac- 
cording to  extract  (1),  represented  the  ark  as  being  "habitu- 
ally guarded  in  the  centre  of  the  camp."  Therefore  its  position 
on  the  march  is  no  criterion  of  its  position  in  camp. 

In  treating  of  the  position  of  the  Ark  we  take  its  position  on 
the  march  first.  In  the  Pentateuch  there  are  two  passages  in  J. 
The  first  is  Numbers  x.  33  :  "  The  ark  ....  went  before  them 
three  days'  journey,  to  seek  out  a  resting  place  for  them."  The 
second  is  the  passage  (verses  35  f.)  where  we  are  told  what 
Moses  said  when  it  set  forward  and  when  it  rested.  Most  mod- 
ern commentators  think — no  doubt  rightly — that  the  words 
"three  days'  journey"  (in  the  second  part  of  x.  33)  are  due 
to  dittography,  and  should  be  expelled  from  the  text.  This  is 
borne  out  by  the  second  passage,  as  Moses  would  not  have 
been  in  a  position  to  say  anything  if  the  Ark  had  been  three 
days'  journey  distant.  Then  reading  34  ff.  continuously  it  be- 
comes clear  that  the  Ark  led  the  way  with  the  cloud  over  it. 
It  is  alleged  by  Dr.  Gray  (Numbers,  p.  93)  that  in  verse  21 
(P)  "the  ark  is  carried  in  the  midst  of  the  people,"  but  his 
reference  does  not  support  his  statement,  particularly  as  he  in- 


93  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

sists  that  in  that  verse  ^np^  cannot  mean  *'  sanctuary,"  but 
must  be  rendered  "  holy  things."  Certainly  any  fair  reader 
finding  the  statement  "And  the  Kohathites  set  forward,  bear- 
ing the  holy  things  ....  and  the  ark  ....  went  before  them  to 
seek  out  a  resting  place  for  them,"  would  not  infer  an  incon- 
sistency. He  might  hold  that  the  ark  was  not  here  included  in 
the  expression  "  holy  things,"  or  he  might  infer  that  this  posi- 
tion of  the  ark  was  abnormal,  and  intended  only  for  the  three 
days'  journey.  And  he  would  be  strengthened  in  this  view  by 
a  further  fact,  a  fact  that  even  a  whole  army  of  indefatigable 
redactors  could  not  eliminate.  Perhaps,  after  what  we  have 
seen  of  the  higher  critical  methods,  some  readers  may  feel 
tempted  to  ask  whether  there  is  anything  for  which  one  or 
more  redactors  cannot  be  held  responsible.  We  think  there  is ; 
for  it  happens  that  the  whole  book  of  Joshua  has  slipped  from 
the  minds  of  Messrs.  Carpenter  and  Gray!  We  turn  to 
Joshua  iii.  f.  Omitting  a  few  harmonists  and  glossators,  this 
narrative  is  adroitly  divided  between  J,  E,  a  Deuteronomic  re- 
viser and  a  late  priestly  stratum ;  and,  alack-a-day !  all  these 
four  separate  individuals  treat  of  the  Ark  in  precisely  the  same 
manner.  And  none  of  these  sources — not  even  Ps,  who  ought 
surely  to  support  our  critics  in  a  matter  of  this  kind — knows 
anything  of  Dr.  Gray's  position  for  the  Ark.  After  this  it  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  add  that  Joshua  vi.  has  also  been  neg- 
lected by  our  commentators,  but  it  too  shows  clearly  that  the 
Ark  (which  was  a  portable  object)  was  not  always  or  neces- 
sarily in  the  same  position,  even  in  JE. 

It  is  therefore  quite  impossible  to  manufacture  any  discrep- 
ancy between  the  various  sources  with  regard  to  the  position  of 
the  Ark  on  the  march. 

We  turn  to  its  position  in  the  camp.  It  appears  from  the 
passages  cited  by  Mr.  Carpenter,  and  also  Joshua  vii.  6,  that  J 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  93 

locates  the  ark  in  the  camp.  So  does  P  (Ex.  xl.  20  ff.).  And 
E  ?  Except  on  the  march  he  is  never  permitted  to  mention  the 
ark  at  all,  either  in  the  Pentateuch  or  Joshua.  The  only  "  evi- 
dence "  that  in  his  view  the  ark  was  kept  outside  the  camp  is 
the  fact  that  when  Moses  (in  Ex.  xxxiii.)  pitched  the  Tent 
there  before  the  ark  had  come  into  existence,  he  did  not  take 
the  ark  with  him.  And  indeed  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  passage 
expressly  states  that  Moses  pitched  the  Tent  for  himself  (not 
for  the  ark).  Probably  that  is  why  Mr.  Carpenter  writes  that 
the  Tent  pitched  outside  "  was  no  doubt  intended  to  enshrine 
the  ark."  We  have  observed  that  a  really  good  higher  critic 
who  has  no  evidence  for  what  he  wishes  to  believe  habitually 
asserts  that  it  was  "  doubtless  "  so,  or  "  must  have  been  "  so, 
or  uses  some  other  similar  phrase  to  supply  the  lack  of  evi- 
dence. But  as  E  in  Joshua  represents  the  ark  as  being  under 
the  charge  of  priests  (not  of  Mo&es  or  his  minister),  it  is  clear 
that  he  did  not  conceive  of  Moses  as  taking  the  non-existent 
ark  outside  the  camp  with  him.  It  therefore  appears  that  here 
again  the  critical  case  breaks  down  hopelessly  under  exami- 
nation. 

THE  TENT  OF  MEETING. 

Mr.  Carpenter's  case  on  this  is  stated  as  follows : — 

"  In  Ex  xxxiii  7  ff  Num  xi  24  ff  xii  4  fif  the  Tent  of  Meeting  is 
pitclied  outside  the  camp.  The  first  of  these  passages  assumes  the 
existence  of  the  tent  and  describes  the  sacred  usage  connected  with 
it:  the  others  supply  incidental  confirmation  by  depicting  incidents 
which  happened  at  its  door.  With  these  conceptions  Dt  xxxi  14  f  is 
in  harmony.  It  is  a  singular  circumstance  that  (in  the  present  text) 
the  first  mention  of  the  place  of  this  Tent  Ex  xxxiii  7  ff  represents 
it  as  in  actual  use  before  it  was  made.  It  is  a  part  of  the  sanctu- 
ary which  is  to  be  constructed  xxvii  21  xxviii  43  xxix  4  ff  xxx  16  ff 
xxxi  7 ;  but  its  preparation  is  not  begun  till  after  the  second  sojourn 
of  Moses  on  the  Mount  xxxiv,  its  erection  being  solemnly  completed 
xl  2-33.  Must  it  not  be  admitted  that  the  two  long  corresponding 
sections  xxv-xxx  and  xxxv-xl  together  with  Num  ii-iii  present  an 


04 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


account  which  is  entirely  independent  of  the  story  in  Ex  xxxiii  7  fif 
and  inconsistent  with  it?"     (Vol.  i.  pp.  51-52.) 

Professor  Van  Hoonacker,  a  great  and  singularly  acute 
scholar,  has  suggested  a  series  of  transpositions  on  page  146  of 
his  "  Sacerdoce  levitique,"  with  a  view  to  removing  the  diffi- 
culty. On  testing  his  theory  we  found  it  unworkable ;  but,  out 
of  respect  for  him,  we  begin  by  setting  it  out,  together  with  the 
facts  that  disprove  it.  In  the  first  column  of  the  following  ta- 
ble we  give  the  order  suggested  by  the  Professor,  in  the  second 
the  indications  of  the  places  at  which  the  various  incidents  oc- 
curred, and  in  the  third  the  parallel  data  of  Numbers  xxxiii. 
It  will  be  seen  that  columns  2  and  3  disprove  column  1. 


prof.  van   hoonack- 
ee's    pboposed    or- 

DEB. 

Ex  XV 


Ex  xxxiii  7-11 


Ex  xvi  1 


Num  xi  1-32  (less 
6b-9  assigned  to  a 
redactor) 

Num  xii 


Ex  xvii  and  further 
(unspecified)  narra- 
tives leading  to 


INDICATIONS  OF  PLACE 
IN  THE  PASSAGES 
NAMED. 

ver  27  people  come 
to  Elim  and  encamp 
there 

No  indication  of 
place  except  what 
may  be  gleaned  from 
the  Tent  and  its  po- 
sition 

The  people  leave 
Elim  and  come  to 
the  wilderness  of 
Sin  between  Elim 
and  Sinai 

Taberah  (ver  H) 


Apparently  the  scene 
is  Hazeroth  which 
the  people  leave 
(ver  16)  for  the  wil- 
derness of  Paran 

ver  1.  The  Israel- 
ites leave  the  wil- 
derness of  Sin  and 
pitch    in    Rephidim : 

6  Horeb   mentioned : 

7  the  place  called 
Massah  and  Meri- 
bah 


DATA  OF   NUM.  XXXUI. 

Num   xxxiii 

ver  9  reach   Elim 

ver  10  Red   Sea 


ver  11  wilderness  of 

Sin 
ver  12  Dophkah 


ver  13  Alush 


ver   14  Rephidim  no 
water  to 
drink 

ver  15  wilderness  of 
Sinai 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  95 

PEOF.     VAN     HOONACK-         INDICATIONS  OF  PLACE 

EB'S      PBOPOSED     OB-  IN      THE      PASSAGES        DATA  OF   NUM.  XXXUI. 

DER.  NAMED. 

Num  X  ver     12     leave     the 

wilderness  of  Sinai 
for  the  wilderness 
of  Paran:  verse  33 
set  forward  from 
the  Mount  of  the 
Lord,  three  days' 
journey 

Ex  xvi  2-36  No  place  named,  but 

(ver    11)    the    cloud 

is  not  in  the  centre 

of     the    camp     (see 

supra  on  the  cloud) 
Ntim  xl  33-4  The      place      called      v®^    ^^   Kibroth-hat- 

Kibroth-hattaavah  taavab 

Num  xiii  ff  ver   3   wilderness   of     ver  17  Hazeroth 

Paran 

Numbers  xi.  35  apj>ears  to  be  left  out  of  the  scheme  alto- 
gether. 

Now  apart  from  the  unsatisfactory  treatment  of  this  verse 
and  Nimibers  xi.  6b-9  (assigned  to  a  redactor),  it  is  evident 
that  the  scheme  breaks  down  through  the  impossible  order  of 
the  places.  Stated  continuously  they  are  as  follows :  Elim, 
wilderness  of  Sin,  Taberah,  Hazeroth,  wilderness  of  Paran, 
then  suddenly  the  Israelites  leave  the  wilderness  of  Sin  for 
Rephidim.  Next  they  leave  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  and  set 
out  for  the  wilderness  of  Paran,  then  the  cloud  is  not  in  the 
center  of  the  camp  (pointing  to  pre-Sinaitic  days),  then  Kib- 
roth-hattaavah,  and  lastly  Paran.  And  if  the  order  proposed 
breaks  down  for  internal  reasons,  it  is  also  difficult  to  reconcile 
with  the  external  testimony  of  Numbers  xxxiii.  We  are, 
therefore,  justified  in  looking  for  the  solution  elsewhere.  But 
il  is  highly  characteristic  of  the  stimulating  quality  of  Pro- 
fessor Van  Hoonacker's  work  that  the  view  which  we  have  to 
propound  grew  out  of  a  train  of  thought  which  was  originally 
suggested  to  us  by  the  very  note  in  which  the  above  transposi- 


96  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

tions  are  put  forward :  and  we  desire  to  acknowledge  the  bene- 
fit we  have  derived  from:  his  work  in  this  as  in  other  instances.^ 

In  deaHng  with  this  question,  it  is  important  that  we  should 
understand  exactly  what  the  case  is  that  we  have  to  meet.  It 
.is  said  that  in  E  the  tent  is  outside  the  camp,  but  in  P  (and 
probably  J)  it  is  in  the  center  of  the  camp.  Bound  up  with 
t'his  are  statements  that  in  E  Joshua  is  the  custodian  of  the 
sanctuary,  that  E  (in  contrast  to  J  and  P)  locates  the  Ark  out- 
side the  camp,  that  the  cloud  is  in  a  different  position,  and  so 
on.  We  have  already  disposed  of  all  these  subsidiary  allega- 
tions, and  are  therefore  free  to  consider  the  main  proposition 
in  all  its  nakedness.  Is  it  the  case  that  E  represents  that  Tent 
which  elsewhere  stands  in  the  center  of  the  camp  as  being 
pitched  outside  it? 

We  begin  by  eliminating  Deuteronomy  xxxi.  14  f.  (E), 
which,  according  to  Mr.  Carpenter,  is  "  in  harmony  with  "  the 

*  We  wish,  however,  to  add  a  few  remarks  on  one  or  two  other 
points. 

(a)  As  to  the  Taberah  incident.  Professor  Van  Hoonacker  here 
relies  on  Deuteronomy  ix.  22,  where  Taberah,  Massah,  Kibroth- 
hattaavah,  are  mentioned  in  the  order  named.  It  may  be  ques- 
tioned whether  this  is  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  a  transposition 
at  all.  If  it  be,  perhaps  the  Deuteronomy  names  are  in  the  wrong 
order,  not  the  Numbers  narratives.  Assuming,  however,  that  Deuter- 
onomy be  held  to  evidence  derangement  in  the  latter,  we  think  the 
transposition  should  affect  only  xi.  1-3.  The  episode  of  the  quails 
in  this  chapter  stands  in  intimate  relation  with  the  name  Kibroth- 
hattaavah  (ver.  33),  which  the  Deuteronomy  verse  dissociates  from 
Taberah.  Hence  the  very  passage  which  is  advanced  for  the  trans- 
position of  verses  1-3  affords  an  argument  for  retaining  the  present 
position  of  verses  4-35.  (I))  As  to  the  seventy  elders:  Professor 
Van  Hoonacker  thinks  that  Exodus  xxiv.  1  assumes  the  narrative 
of  Numbers  xi.  16  ff.  We  cannot  agree.  Indeed,  we  think  that 
if,  at  the  time  Moses  ascended  the  mountain,  seventy  elders  had  al- 
ready been  invested  with  a  portion  of  his  spirit,  the  arrangement  by 
which  Aaron  and  Hur  were  intrusted  with  judicial  business  would 
probably  have  been  unnecessary,  or  at  any  rate  would  have  utilized 
the  seventy  in  some  way.     In  Exodus  the  elders  are  present  to  rep- 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  97 

representation  attributed  to  E.  If  that  passage  be  examined, 
it  will  be  observed  that  it  contains  nothing  in  any  way  sugges- 
tive of  a  position  outside  the  camp.  We  have  already  pointed 
out  that  it  is  not  "  in  harmony  with  "  a  theory  making  Joshua 
the  permanent  resident  attendant  of  the  Tent  ^ :  and  there  is 
not  a  syllable  in  the  passage  that  is  decisive  of  the  location  of 
the  Tent.    That  may  therefore  be  left  out  of  consideration. 

Turning  now  to  Exodus  xxxiii.  7,  we  read  that  "  Moses  used 
to  take  the  Tent  [Greek  and  Syriac,  his  tent]  and  pitch  it  for 
himself  [Greek  omits  "for  himself"]  without  the  camp,  afar 
off  from  the  camp ;  and  he  called  it,  The  Tent  of  Meeting." 
Now  in  Hebrew  this  can  mean  that  Moses  used  to  take  a  tent 
(cp.  Deut.  XV.  17 ;  and  see  Strack  on  this  passage,  or  Driver 
on  1  Sam.  xix.  13) .  From  the  latter  note  the  following  may  be 
cited :  "  The  garment  [i.e.  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  13,  where  the  He- 
brew and  R.V.  have  "the,"  A.V.  "a"],  the  cord  [i.e.  in  Josh. 

resent  the  people — nothing  more :  in  Numbers  they  are  chosen  to 
assist  Moses  in  dealing  with  the  people,  though  it  is  true  that  their 
business  was  not  chiefly  judicial,  (c)  As  to  the  manna:  Numbers 
xi.  4  ff.  is  much  more  vivid  and  natural  if  the  people  had  been  on 
the  manna  diet  for  a  considerable  time  than  if  the  narrative  be 
placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  wanderings.  Moreover,  the  people 
have  no  obvious  means  of  subsistence  till  after  Sinai  in  this  arrange- 
ment of  the  text.  (d5)As  to  the  quails:  Attention  should  be  drawn 
to  the  dates.  We  shall  discuss  these  more  fully  when  we  consider 
this  chapter  of  Numbers.  For  the  moment  we  note  the  following 
facts :  The  first  flight  of  quails  occurred  on  or  soon  after  the  fif- 
teenth day  of  the  second  month  of  the  first  year  (Ex.  xvi.  1).  The 
second  flight  must  have  been  at  the  same  season  of  the  year,  for  the 
Israelites  left  Sinai  on  the  twentieth  of  the  second  month  of  the  sec- 
ond year  (x.  11),  and  appear  to  have  arrived  at  Kibroth-hattaavah  a 
few  days  later.  The  details  of  the  Mosaic  calendar  are,  of  course, 
unknown  to  us :  but  it  is  reasonably  clear  that  in  both  narratives  the 
same  season  is  contemplated,  and  as  the  Exodus  fell  in  the  early 
spring  it  is  reasonably  clear  (pace  Dr.  Gray),  that  "in  the  original 
source  this  story  was  referred  to  the  spring  season."  (See,  further. 
Gray,  Numbers,  pp.  117  f.) 

^  See  supra,  p.  70. 


98  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

ii.  15,  Heb.  "  the,"  A.V.  and  R.V.  "  a  "],  the  pots  [i.e.  2  Kings 
X.  7,  Heb.  "  the,"  A.V.  and  R.V.  "  in  baskets  "]  are  each  not 
determined  by  some  antecedent  reference  or  allusion,  but  are 
fixed  in  the  writer's  mind,  and  defined  by  the  article,  ^3^  the 
purpose  to  which  it  is,  or  is  to  be,  put."  Dr.  Driver  then  cites 
various  examples,  including  Numbers  xxi.  9  "  on  a  [Heb.  and 
R.V.  "  the  "]  pole  " ;  Judges  vii.  13  "  a  [Heb.  and  R.V.  ''  the  "] 
tent."  Finally,  he  adds  that  "  a  difference  between  Hebrew  and 
English  idiom  must  here  be  recognized." 

Once  this  rendering  comes  into  view,  it  becomes  evident  that 
the  difference  of  reading  between  the  Greek  and  the  Hebrew 
does  not  cover  any  important  difference  of  meaning.  Whether 
Moses  took  his  tent,  or  whether  he  took  a  tent  and  pitched  it 
for  himself,  does  not  matter  much  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  sense  conveyed.  As  at  present  advised  we  prefer  the  He- 
brew text,  but  either  will  serve  equally  well.  Neither  in  any 
way  suggests  the  Dwelling,  which  had  not  yet  been  construct- 
ed. And  on  any  view  of  the  passage  it  is  extraordinarily  im- 
probable that  Moses  should  take  the  Tent  that  sheltered  the 
ark  and  pitch  it  (without  the  ark)  for  himself,  leaving  the  ark 
bared  and  unguarded,  which  is  the  only  case  the  critics  can  set 
up  on  the  Hebrew  text. 

To  this  Tent  those  who  wished  to  seek  the  Lord  used  to  re- 
pair :  and  at  this  stage  it  becomes  necessary  to  consider  an- 
other passage  of  E,  which  contains  a  similar  representation, 
but  with  important  differences.  Exodus  xviii.  narrates  certain 
incidents  that  happened  before  Moses  left  Sinai.  It  is  not  at 
present  in  its  proper  position  chronologically.  We  learn  (ver. 
5)  that  Jethro  came  unto  Moses  into  the  wilderness,  where  he 
was  encamped  at  the  mount  of  God  (cp.  xix.  2),  and  Deuter- 
onomy i.  6-19  appears  to  support  this.  Mr.  Carpenter  places 
it  "  among  the  last  of  the  Horeb  scenes,"  and  verse  16  would 


Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism.  99 

certainly  fit  in  well  enough  as  a  statement  made  after  the  Sina- 
itic  covenant.  Moreover,  Numbers  xii.  1  becomes  much  more 
intelligible  if  the  Cushite  woman  had  only  recently  arrived  in 
the  camp,  as  would  be  the  case  if  Jethro's  visit  fell  shortly  be- 
fore the  departure  from  Horeb,^  and  the  language  of  Deuter- 
onomy i.  suits  this  date.  Now  it  is  noticeable  that  in  this 
narrative,  referring  apparently  to  a -later  time  than  the  events 
recorded  in  Exodus  xxxiii.,  Moses  does  not  sit  in  a  tent  outside 
the  camp.  The  differences  are  striking.  In  Exodus  xxxiii.  7. 
Moses  goes  out  to  the  Tent :  in  Exodus  xviii.  13  he  sits  to 
judge  the  people.  In  Exodus  xxxiii.  8  ff.  all  the  people  rise  and 
stand  at  the  doors  of  their  tents,  looking  after  Moses.  When 
they  see  the  cloud  standing  at  the  door  of  the  tent,  they  wor- 
ship. In  xviii.  13b,  14,  they  stand  about  Moses  from  the 
morning  unto  the  evening.  It  will  be  observed  that  both  pas- 
sages alike  belong  to  E,  and  both  narrate  the  practice  whereby 

*  Both  Mr.  Carpenter  and  Dr.  Gray  regard  the  words  "  for  he  had 
married  a  Cushite  woman"  as  a  gloss.  With  this  view  we  heartily 
concur.  Our  present  Pentateuch  contains  variorum  notes:  and  we 
thinli  that,  after  the  existence  of  the  North  Arabian  Cush  had  been 
completely  forgotten,  some  reader  who  thought  Cushite  meant  Ethi- 
opian added  these  words  as  an  explanatory  note.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  how  the  narrative  gains  in  vividness  when  the  words  are  re- 
moved. Dr.  Gray  (Numbers,  p.  121)  writes:  "In  its  present  posi- 
tion, it  is  true,  the  clause  itself,  apart  from  any  particular  interpre- 
tation of  Cushite,  reasonably  implies  that  the  marriage  was  recent." 
We  would  substitute  the  word  "  grievance  "  for  "  marriage" ;  and  we 
think  that  with  this  alteration  the  point  is  well  taken.  Although  the 
marriage  was  not  recent,  Zipporah's  presence  in  the  camp  and  her 
contact  with  Miriam  and  Aaron  could  then  have  been  of  no  long 
duration  if  she  had  only  arrived  shortly  before  the  departure  from 
Sinai.  The  language  used,  "the  Cushite  woman"  instead  of  her 
name,  faithfully  reflects  the  method  by  which  Miriam,  and  Aaron 
sought  to  arouse  prejudice  against  her,  for  union  with  Midianitish 
women  was  perfectly  legal  in  the  Mosaic  age  (Num.  xxxi.  18;  Deut. 
xxi.  10-14,  etc.)  for  all  Israelites  except  the  high  priest  (Lev.  xxi. 
14).  Unhappily  it  has  always  been  only  too  easy  to  rouse  the  feeling 
of  any  people  against  foreigners. 


100  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

the  people  consulted  the  Divine  through  Moses.  It  would  ap- 
pear, therefore,  that  in  the  interval  separating  the  events  re- 
corded the  practice  had  changed.  The  reason  is  not  far  to 
seek.  The  sanctuary  had  been  erected,  and  Moses  sat  at  the 
door  of  what  had  now  become  the  Tent  of  Meeting,  where  he 
could  commune  with  God  (Ex.  xxv.  22)  should  need  arise 
(Num.  vii.  89;  Lev.  xxiv.  12;  Num.  xxvii.  2  and  5  (all  P)). 
Thus  the  position  of  Moses  when  sitting  as  a  judge  in  E  sup- 
ports and  in  turn  is  supported  by  the  statements  of  P.  The 
tent  which  figures  as  the  Tent  of  Meeting  m  Exodus  xxxiii. 
was  disused  after  the  erection  of  the  sanctuary  in  accordance 
with  the  instructions  of  Exodus  xxv.,  and  the  very  document 
which  tells  of  the  location  of  this  earlier  Tent  outside  the  camp 
plainly  shows  us  that  the  business  which  had  once  been  trans- 
acted in  it  was  dealt  with  at  a  later  date  in  a  more  central  po- 
sition. 

It  only  remains  to  consider  Numbers  xi.  and  xii.,  where  it 
is  said  that  the  Tent  once  more  stands  without  the  camp.  We 
begin  with  the  latter  of  these  two  chapters,  as  in  this  way  we 
can  use  the  involuntary .  assistance  of  Dr.  Gray  in  destroying 
the  theory  he  so  firmly  believes.  On  verse  5  he  writes  as  fol- 
lows (p.  124)  :— 

"  The  Lord  descends  in  the  pillar  of  cloud,  and  stands  at  the  door 
of  the  tent.  He  then  summons  Miriam  and  Aaron,  and  they  both  step 
forward,  viz.,  from  the  position  which  they  had  taken  up  togethfe? 
with  Moses.  Certainly  this  gives  the  verb  "IK^"*"!  a  sense  different 
from  that  in  which  it  is  used  in  verse  4,  and  in  itself  unusual  (yet 
cp.  Zech.  V  5).  Dillmann  explains  the  verb  in  both  cases  of  going  out 
from  the  camp,  regarding  verse  4  (J)  and  verse  5  (E)  as  doublets. 
But  (1)  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  E's  representation  elsewhere 
that  the  theophanic  cloud  should  appear,  and  wait  for  people  to  come 
out  from  the  camp;  the  persons  summoned  to  or  seeking  God  await 
His  appearance,  not  He  theirs;  see  Ex.  xxxiii  7-11,  Num.  xi  16 f. 
24  f.  (2)  Verse  4  by  its  reference  to  the  tent,  no  less  than  verse  5  by 
its  reference  to  the  cloud,  seems  to  belong  to  E." 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  101 

Dr.  Gray's  argument  that  the  persons  summoned  to,  or 
seeking,  God  await  His  appearance  appears  to  us  unanswerable, 
and  his  reference  to  Zechariah  v.  5  is  apt.  This  fixes  the 
sense  of  the  verb  in  verse  5.  But  if  the  word  has  this  meaning 
in  verse  5,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  in  verse  4  it  need  not 
mean  anything  more  than  stepping  forward  from  the  encamp- 
ment of  Mcses  and  Aaron  east  of  the  Tent  (Num.  iii.  38)  to 
the  Tent  itself.  It  is  true  that  in  verse  10  the  R.V.  trans- 
lates :  "  And  the  cloud  moved  from  over  the  Tent,"  and  this 
might  be  thought  to  conflict  with  P;  but  Messrs.  Carpenter 
and  Gray  are  both  careful  to  insist  that  this  meaning  is  here 
unsuitable,  and  Dr.  Gray  renders  "  from  beside  the  Tent,"  cit- 
ing xvi.  26,  27,  and  other  passages.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
the  language  of  Numbers  xvi.  42  (Heb.  xvii.  7)  certainly  im- 
plies that  the  cloud  did  not  always  actually  touch  the  Tent  in 
P.  It  was  always  over  it,  but  the  height  mjay  have  varied. 
This  is  also  in  harmony  with  I^viticus  xvi.  2. 

We  return  now  to  chapter  xi.  The  case  here  rests  on  verses 
26,  27,  and  30,  and  turns  on  two  points:  (1)  the  phrase 
"gone  out"  in  verse  26,  and  (2)  the  opposition  between  the 
Tent  and  the  camp  in  all  three  verses.  The  first  point  has  al- 
ready been  disposed  of,  the  verb  used  being  the  same  as  in 
xii.  4,  5.  With  regard  to  the  antithesis  of  camp  and  Tent  this 
reappears  in  P.  In  Numbers  ii.  17  the  R.V.  has  "  the  tent  of 
meeting  shall  set  forward,  with  the  camp  of  the  Levites  in  the 
midst  of  the  camps."  Unfortunately,  as  Dr.  Gray  {ad.  loc.) 
remarks,  this  does  not  translate  the  Hebrew,  which  means 
"  the  tent  of  meeting,  the  camp  of  the  Levites."  Dr.  Gray 
speaks  of  the  awkwardness  of  this,  and  we  think  it  probable 
that  the  true  text  is  preserved  by  the  Greek,  which  has  "  and 
the  camp,"  etc.  This  only  means  the  addition  of  the  single 
letter    l  to  the  Hebrew,  and  gives  a  far  superior  reading.    But 


102  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

even  if  this  be  incorrect,  the  antithesis  between  the  Tent  and 
the  camps  comes  out  clearly  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse. 
For  these  reasons  we  can  see  no  ground  for  supposing  that 
chapter  xi.  locates  the  Tent  elsewhere  than  in  the  center  of  the 
camp.     Professor  Green's  language  may  be  adopted: — 

"  It  is  claimed  that  in  the  conception  of  these  passages  the  Taber- 
nacle was  located  altogether  outside  of  the  camp,  contrary  to  ch  ii 
which  places  it  in  the  centre  of  the  host.  But  this  is  an  unwarranted 
inference  from  expressions  which  readily  admit  a  different  inter- 
pretation, and  one  in  harmony  with  the  uniform  representation  of  all 
other  passages  relating  to  the  subject.  The  camp  was  a  vast  hollow 
square  with  the  Tabernacle  in  the  centre  and  the  tribes  arranged 
about  it,  leaving  of  course  a  respectful  distance  between  the  house  of 
God  and  the  tents  of  men.  In  approaching  the  Sanctuary  it  was 
necessary  to  go  out  from  the  place  occupied  by  the  tents  and  traverse 
the  open  space  which  intervened  between  them  and  the  Tabernacle." 
(Hebraica,  vol.  viii.  p.  183.) 

Once  this  is  grasped,  it  is  clear  why  xii.  5  speaks  of  God's 
coming  down  in  the  cloud,  i.e.  the  cloud  which  fromi  the  erec- 
tion of  the  Dwelling  onwards  normally  stood  above  the  Tab- 
ernacle in  the  center  of  the  camp :  and  the  last  shred  of  justi- 
fication for  the  theory  that  the  various  sources  contain  diver- 
gent representations  of  the  cloud  finally  disappears. 

We  have  now  disposed  of  some  of  the  most  formidable  ar- 
guments for  the  higher  critical  partition :  and  this  discussion 
will  tend  to  shorten  our  treatment  of  many  of  the  later 
chapters. 

THE  ANALYSIS   OF  THE   NARRATIVE  EXODUS  XIII -NUMBERS   XII. 

We  return  to  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea. 

Mr.  Carpenter  raises  one  or  two  points  of  textual  criticism 
which  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  these  essays.  His  other 
notes  on  Exodus  xiv.  really  put  forward  nothing  that  is  wor- 
thy of  discussion.  Thus,  on  verses  10b,  11  ("  and  the  children 
of  Israel  cried  out  unto  the  Lord,  and  they  said  unto  Moses  "), 
he  writes  :    "  In  J  the  Israelites  expostulate  with  Moses;  with 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  103 

11  cp  xvii  3  Num  xiv  3  Ex  v  15.  According  to  Josh  xxiv 
7  they  cried  to  the  Lord  ;  this  prayer,  therefore,  is  assigned  to 
E."  The  "  therefore  "  is  certainly  noticeable  as  an  epitome  of 
higher  critical  logic,  but  it  would  be  mere  waste  of  time  to  dis- 
cuss such  arguments. 

Exodus  XV.  contains  the  song  of  Moses.  It  falls  outside  the 
main  narrative,  and  will  therefore  be  passed  over  here. 

Exodus  xvi.  need  not  now  detain  us  long.  Mr.  Carpenter 
makes  two  main  points :  first,  that  in  6  f.  Moses  and  Aaron 
announce  to  the  people  what  is  not  communicated  to  Moses 
till  11  f. ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  story  implies  the  existence  of 
the  Dwelling.  We  have  already  suggested  a  transposition 
which  meets  the  first  point,  and  we  have  shown  the  baseless- 
ness of  the  second.!  Mr.  Carpenter  further  asserts  that  verses 
4  and  11  f.  "  can  hardly  be  from  the  same  writer."  We  con- 
fess that  we  fail  to  see  why.  He  makes  a  more  substantial 
point  when  he  says  that  the  intention  to  prove  the  Israelites  in 
verse  4  fits  in  with  xv.  25b.  Certainly  chapter  xv.  has  no  rec- 
ord of  any  proof  of  the  Israelites,  and  it  is  therefore  possible 
that  25b,  26  have  accidentally  suffered  displacement,  and 
really  belong  to  chapter  xvi.  In  that  case  they  would  follow 
verse  30.  And  this  leads  us  to  speak  of  one  of  the  quaintest 
of  the  higher  critical  vagaries.  It  is  tolerably  obvious  that 
verse  31  (And  the  children  of  Israel  called  the  name  thereof 
Manna  (Heb.  man))  is  closely  connected  with  verse  15  (they 
said  one  to  another.  What  (Heb.  man)  is  it),  but  Mr.  Carpen- 
ter holds  that  this  portion  of  verse  15  contains  a  trace  of  E,  and 
assigns  it  to  a  later  priestly  editor,  while  giving  its  sequel  (31) 
to  the  main  body  of  P,  which  of  course  is  earlier  than  the  ed- 
itor !  It  may  be  a  question  whether  verse  31  did  not  originally 
stand  immediately  after  "  for  they  wist  not  what  it  was  "  in 
^8upra,  p.  90,  note,  pp.  84-86. 


104  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

verse  15.  Indeed  that  alteration  of  place  could  easily  be  ac- 
counted for  by  a  very  common  MS.  error,  the  copyist's  eye 
having  possibly  slipped  from  the  ''  and  Moses  said  "  in  verse 
15  to  the  same  phrase  in  verse  32,  and  the  omitted  passage 
(15b-30)  having  then  been  written  in  first  in  the  margin  and 
subsequently  (on  recopying)  one  verse  too  soon. 

In  verse  32  the  Septuagint  actually  reads  "  of  manna " 
where  the  Hebrew  has  "  of  it " :  and  this  involves  no  change 
in  the  consonantal  text  as  originally  written,  for  the  matres 
lectionis  and  the  distinct  forms  for  the  final  letters  are  of 
course  comparatively  recent :  and  this  reading  would  remove 
any  awkwardness  resulting  from  the  removal  of  verse  31  to 
the  earlier  position.  It  is  curious  that  Mr.  Carpenter,  while 
remarking  (note  on  22)  that  verse  31  "  is  not  the  proper  sequel 
of  30,"  did  not  also  add  that  it  is  the  proper  sequel  of  15a. 

Passing  to  Exodus  xvii.,  we  are  speedily  confronted  with 
some  delicious  higher  critical  reasoning.  Doublets — by  which 
the  higher  critics  mean  two  similar  narratives — are  regarded 
as  proving  diversity  of  source.  At  present  the  Pentateuch 
contains  two  narratives  in  which  Moses  draws  water  from  a 
rock,  Exodus  xvii.  and  Numbers  xx.  The  critics  hold  it  im- 
possible that  any  author  should  have  told  two  such  stories,  and 
therefore  proceed  to  apply  their  curious  methods.  The  result 
is  startling.  In  place  of  one  author  who  writes  two  such  nar- 
ratives, we  double  the  number  and  get  two  (J  and  E).  "  J's 
traditions,"  writes  Mr.  Carpenter  (vol.  ii.  p.  107),  "attached 
parallel  incidents  to  two  names,  Massah  and  Meribah.  E  ap- 
pears also  to  have  contained  explanations  of  both  designa- 
tions." In  addition,  P  had  a  Meribah  story .^  So  that  we 
reach  the  result  that  when  the  higher  critics  desire  to  divide 

*  Perhaps,  also  a  Rephidim  story  (Num.  xxxiii.  14)  unless  this  be 
based  by  Ps  on  the  combined  Pentateuch. 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  105 

two  by  two,  their  arithmetical  labors  lead  them  to  believe  that 
the  quotient  is  five !  ^  Truly  a  wondrous  cure  for  the  Penta- 
teuchal doublets ! 

It  seems  unnecessary  to  follow  the  details  of  the  reasoning 
by  which  the  perfectly  straightforward  narrative  of  verses 
1-7  is  reduced  to  a  chaotic  collection  of  unintelligible  frag- 
ments. All  the  difficulties  that  the  higher  critics  experience 
here  are  of  their  own  making,  and  find  no  support  in  the  un- 
divided text.  Mr.  Carpenter,  however,  takes  "  Horeb,"  in 
verse  6,  as  proving  that  "  the  story  has  been  placed  too  soon 
....  for  Israel  has  not  yet  reached  the  sacred  mountain."  But 
this  is  due  to  a  misunderstanding.  Verses  5  and  6  represent 
Israel  as  not  yet  having  reached  Horeb.  On  the  contrary, 
Moses  is  to  pass  on  to  Horeb  before  the  people,  and  God  will 
stand  before  him  there  {not  here).  No  doubt  the  water  would 
issue  from  the  rock  at  Horeb  into  a  channel  which  would  bring 
it  to  the  people  at  Rephidim. 

Mr.  Carpenter  holds  the  fight  with  Amalek  in  verses  8-16 
to  be  misplaced.  "  Joshua  enters  in  9  without  introduction  as 
though  he  were  well  known :  he  is  already  the  tried  captain  on 
whom  devolves  the  choice  of  men  for  military  enterprise.  Yet  in 
xxxiii  11  he  is  formally  described,  apparently  for  the  first  time, 
and  he  is  then  still  '  a  young  man.'  "  (Vol.  ii.  p.  107.)  "  Tried 
captain  "  is  an  imaginative  touch,  and  in  the  critical  scheme  the 
same  source  that  describes  him  "  apparently  for  the  first  time  " 
in  xxxiii.  is  permitted  to  refer  to  him  for  a  couple  of  ante-first 
times  in  xxiv.  13 ;  xxxii.  17.  It  is  not  obvious  why  Mr.  Car- 
penter should  be  surprised  at  a  young  man's  being  still  a  young 
man  after  the  lapse  of  a  few  weeks.  If  he  is  astonished  at  a 
young  man's  being  intrusted  with  a  high  command,  he  need 
only  think  of  the  ages  of  the  great  captains  of  the  world, 
^  Or  perhaps  six,  if  P  liad  a  Rephidim  story. 


106  Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 

Alexander,  Hannibal,  Napoleon,  etc.  Nor  is  it  clear  why 
Moses — who  was  eighty  when  the  Exodus  took  place — should 
be  spoken  of  as  "no  longer  able  himself  to  sustain  his  hand 
outstretched  with  the  rod."  Let  Mr.  Carpenter  experiment 
with  a  rod,  and  see  whether  he  finds  it  easy  himself  to  sustain 
his  hand  outstretched  with  a  rod  for  a  number  of  hours.  To 
speak  of  the  location  of  Amalek  elsewhere  near  Kadesh  as  an 
obstacle  is  to  ignore  the  whole  drift  of  the  narrative.  "  Then 
[Heb.  and]  came  Amalek,"  i.e.  unnecessarily  and  gratuitously, 
to  attack  the  Israelites :  and  the  reference  in  Deuteronomy 
XXV.  17  f.  certainly  appears  to  confirm  the  early  dating  of  this 
episode.  There  is,  therefore,  no  ground  for  holding  that  "  the 
identification  of  the  incident  with  Rephidim   (8)  is  editorial." 

Exodus  xviii.  calls  for  no  further  comment.  We  have  al- 
ready recognized  that  it  is  not  in  place  at  present.  Mr.  Car- 
penter thinks  that  "  J  "  's  narrative  may  have  stood  before 
Numbers  x.  29  originally,  and  we  think  this  would  be  a  very 
suitable  place  for  the  whole  chapter. 

On  the  other  hand.  Exodus  xxxiii.  7-11  appears  to  be  out 
of  place  in  its  present  position.  (1)  It  clearly  has  no  connec- 
tion with  the  narrative  which  at  present  surrounds  it.  (2) 
Exodus  xxiv.  14,  providing  for  the  interim  transaction  of  ju- 
dicial business  by  Aaron  and  Hur  during  the  absence  of 
Moses  and  Joshua,  appears  to  refer  to  some  such  arrangement 
as  that  here  described  being  already  in  full  swing.  (3)  It 
would  be  very  suitable  to  the  introduction  of  Joshua,  in  which 
case  it  must  precede  Exodus  xvii.  If  it  be  placed  after  Exo- 
dus xiii.  22,  it  will  be  found  that  all  difficulties  disappear,  and 
the  constant  practice  of  Moses  in  going  outside  the  camp  and 
speaking  to  the  cloud  attaches  naturally  to  the  description  of 
the  cloud  in  the  preceding  verse.  Let  the  notices  relating  to 
(a)  Joshua,  (b)  the  seat  of  judgment,  (c)  the  cloud,  (d)  the 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  107 

judges,  (e)  the  Tent  of  Meeting  (including  Ex.  xxv.  22),  be 
read  continuously  as  suggested,  with  Exodus  xxxiii.  7-11  after 
xiii.  22  and  Exodus  xviii.  before  Numbers  x.  29,  and  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  narrative  gains  in  intelligibility. 

Chapter  xix.  is  cut  up  in  the  usual  fashion,  but  no  discrep- 
ancies are  alleged,  save  one,  which  depends  on  the  state  of  the 
text.  Verse  25  ends  abruptly  with  the  words  "  said  unto 
them,"  leaving  in  doubt  what  Moses  did  say.  Obviously 
something  has  here  fallen  out,  and  no  doubt  the  missing  pas- 
sage contained  the  sequel  to  verse  24  (Moses  and  Aaron  to 
come  up)  as  well  as  the  speech  to  the  people.  The  "coming 
up  "  cannot  have  beem  to  the  summit,  for  xx.  19  excludes  this : 
but  presumably  Moses  and  Aaron  came  within  the  barrier. 
The  rest  of  the  analysis  of  the  chapter  is  effected  by  the  usual 
methods.  At  this  stage  it  is  unnecessary  to  weary  our  readers 
with  any  detailed  examination  of  them; 

Nothing  of  moment  is  urged  against  chapter  xxiv.,  and  we 
come  to  xxxii.,  where  the  narrative  is  resumed. 

The  first  point  of  importance  is  raised  on  verses  25-29.  Mr. 
Carpenter  thinks  that  in  29  "  the  tribe  of  Levi  is  apparently 
consecrated  as  the  sacred  tribe  .  .  .  this  is  altogether  different 
from  the  programme  of  P  in  xxviii."  (Vol.  ii.  p.  131,  note  on 
Ex.  xxxiii.  2oa.)  His  inference  as  to  the  rneaning  of  29  is, 
we  think,  erroneous.  It  is  not  suggested  in  the  text  that  the 
priesthood  was  conferred  on  the  tribe  as  the  result  of  its  zeal. 
If  this  were  the  meaning,  a  ready  parallel  could  be  found  in 
Numbers  xxv.  10-13  (P)  ;  but  the  difficulty  really  only  arises 
from  a  misreading  of  the  passage.  The  rest  of  Mr.  Carpen- 
ter's note  clearly  betrays  the  perplexity  in  which  his  critical 
principles  have  here  involved  bim.  But  he  mjakes  one  further 
remark  which  should  be  noted.  He  thinks  that  verse  35  refers 
to  some  further  punishment  of  the  people.     It  appears  to  us 


108  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

that  verses  30-34  are  out  of  place,  and  that  verse  35  should 
follow  verse  29.  Thus  it  does  not  seem  to  us  to  refer  to  any- 
new  punishment. 

We  have  already  suggested  that  xxxiii.  7-11  should  be  re- 
moved to  an  earlier  position  in  the  narrative.  We  would  point 
out  that  xxxii.  30-34  would  follow  xxxiii.  6  quite  suitably, 
"  bring  up  this  people,"  in  verse  12a,  following  conveniently 
on  xxxii.  34,  but  the  rest  of  the  chapter  contains  difficulties 
that  are  still  unsolved,  and  indeed  appear  to  indicate  textual 
corruption.    Mr.  Carpenter  writes  as  follows : — 

"The  expostulation  of  Moses  in  this  passage  seems  directly  con- 
nected with  the  command  in  1-3.  But  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
the  materials  of  12-23  are  now  arranged  in  their  proper  order.  The 
words  quoted  in  12  *  Yet  thou  hast  said '  etc.  are  not  uttered  till  17 : 
either,  therefore,  17  once  stood  before  12,  or,  if  17  is  in  its  place,  some 
other  divine  utterance  must  have  preceded  12.  The  latter  is  the  view 
of  Bacon  who  unites  3  with  12  by  means  of  Num  xi  lOb-15  and  a 
conjectural  passage  containing  the  required  phrase  (it  must  be  re- 
membered that  before  the  union  of  JE  with  P  Ex  xxxiii-xxxiv  28 
was  followed  immediately  by  Num  x  29-xii).  Another  suggestion  is 
that  of  Kautzsch  who  proposes  to  translate  14  as  a  question,  *  Shall 
(or  must)  my  presence  go  with  thee,  and  must  I  give  thee  rest?' 
while  Dillmann  regards  14-16  as  the  sequel  of  xxxiv  6-9,  a  sugges- 
tion which  has  the  support  of  Driver.  The  difficulty  may  be  par- 
tially met  by  a  simple  re-arrangement  of  the  verses;  if  17  be  trans- 
ferred as  the  antecedent  of  12,  the  prayer  of  Moses  13  '  Make  me 
to  know  thy  way '  is  answered  by  the  promise  '  My  presence  shall  go 
with  thee.'  Of  this  (16)  Moses  desires  immediate  assurance  which 
the  Lord  grants  with  the  announcement  (19)  that  he  will  make  his 
goodness  pass  before  him.  But  Moses,  still  urgent,  prays  that  the 
Lord  will  enable  him  to  see  his  glory,  his  very  self  (18).  The 
prayer  cannot  be  satisfied  (20),  'Thou  canst  not  see  my  face'  (the 
'presence'  of  15)  :  but  in  the  cleft  of  the  rock  he  shall  behold  his 
back  as  the  Lord  passes  by  21-23.  The  more  natural  order  would 
seem  to  be  17,  12-16,  19,  18,  20-23  leading  directly  to  xxxiv  &-9." 
(Vol.  ii.  p.  133,  on  12a.) 

But  Mr.  Carpenter's  proposed  order  is  also  open  to  objec- 
tion, for  17  says,  "  I  will  do  this  thing  also  that  thou  hast 
spoken  "  and  mrust  therefore  be  preceded  by  some  intercessicnn 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  109 

of  Moses  which  is  wanting  in  the  scheme  suggested.  More- 
over, verse  15  f.  should  apparently  come  before  verse  14.  On 
the  whole,  it  seems  best  to  suppose  that  the  phrases  in  verse  12 
do  not  refer  to  anything  in  our  present  Pentateuch,  but  em- 
body an  appeal  which  either  has  some  hidden  meaning,  or  else 
refers  to  something  of  which  we  have  no  record. 

We  conclude  this  essay  by  considering  the  points  raised  on 
Numbers  xi.  4-34. 

We  take  first  the  question  of  the  doublets.  We  have  seen 
that  when  the  higher  critics  wish  to  deny  the  unity  of  the  nar- 
rative they  rely  on  duplicate  narratives — a  feature  which  they 
profess  to  be  able  to  remove.  Then  they  perform  their  arith- 
metical operations,  and  triumphantly  produce  a  larger  number 
of  duplicates  as  the  solution  of  the  problem.  We  witnessed 
the  process  in  the  case  of  Massah  and  Meribah,  and  it  may  be 
seen  again  in  the  case  of  the  manna.  Numbers  xi.  4-6  clearly 
implies  that  the  Israelites  had  been  on  the  manna  diet  for  a 
long  time  and  were  heartily  tired  of  it.  Accordingly  it  be- 
comes necessary  to  postulate  an  earlier  reference  to  manna  in 
JE  to  make  up  for  the  loss  of  Exodus  xvi.,  most  of  which  has 
gone  to  P.  If  with  Mr.  Carpenter  Exodus  xvi.  4  be  given  to 
E  while  the  present  passage  is  assigned  to  J,  we  shall  have  at 
least  four  manna  stories,  viz.  J  two  (Num.  xi.  and  its  antece- 
dent in  the  same  document)  ;  E  one  (Ex.  xvi.  4  and  its  original 
context)  ;  P  one  (Ex.  xvi.,  except  verse  4).  Moreover,  E  and 
P  inserted  their  manna  stories  at  precisely  the  same  point  in  the 
narrative,  and  J's  first  manna  story,  being  long  before  Kibroth- 
hattaavah,  must  also  have  come  soon  after  the  Exodus.  Such 
are  the  results  of  "  Critical  "  analysis  ! 

With  regard  to  the  quails  the  matter  is  different.  It  is  true 
that  onct  before  the  people  had  had  quails,  but  in  Exodus  xvi. 
they  play  a  very  subsidiary  part,  whereas,  on  this  occasion,  the 


110  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

flight  lasted  a  whole  month.  The  dates  raise  some  presump- 
tion that  there  really  were  two  flights  of  quails.  The  Exodus 
occurred  in  the  early  spring,  and  the  first  flight  of  quails  took 
place  on  or  about  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  second  month.  They 
left  Sinai  on  the  twentieth  day  of  the  corresponding  month  of 
the  next  year.  If,  as  many  think,  their  year  at  this  time  was 
a  lunar  year,  the  solar  anniversary  of  the  fifteenth  day  would 
fall  on  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  the  second  month.  After  the 
departure  on  the  twentieth  day  they  set  forward  three  days' 
journey.  The  season  of  the  year  was,  therefore,  as  nearly  as 
possible  the  same  as  that  of  the  first  flight  of  quails.  The  dif- 
ference in  the  duration  of  the  two  flights  may  perhaps  be  due 
to  the  altered  position  of  the  Israelites  or  to  some  temporary 
circumstances  that  were  peculiar  tc  one  or  other  of  the  partic- 
ular years :  certainly  it  explains  the  surprise  of  Moses  in 
verses  31  f.  If  the  desert  of  the  wanderings  lay  near  the  or- 
dinary route  of  the  quails  in  their  annual  northward  flight, 
nothing  is  more  probable  than  that  the  Israelites  did  in  fact 
benefit  annually,  though  after  the  first  two  years  the  incident 
may  not  have  called  for  special  notice.  The  annual  recurrence 
of  a  phenomenon  that  is  well  known  to  happen  every  year 
cannot  reasonably  be  regarded  as  a  ground  for  denying  the 
same  authorship  to  the  accounts  relating  to  different  years. 
•  From  what  the  critics  will  not  believe  we  pass  to  what  they 
will.    Mr.  Carpenter's  note  on  10b  runs  as  follows : — 

"  The  expostulation  of  Moses  lOb-12,  15  does  not  seem  in  harmony 
with  the  cause  implied  in  the  context.  His  *  displeasure '  is  plainly- 
directed,  not  like  the  anger  of  the  Lord  against  the  people,  but 
against  the  Lord  himself.  The  language  of  12  suggests  that  he  re- 
pudiates a  responsibility  which  really  lies  upon  the  God  of  Israel. 
But  that  responsibility  has  not  here  been  thrown  upon  him,  except 
by  remote  implication.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  formally  laid  on  him 
in  Ex  xxxiii  1,  12.  Now  in  the  original  document  of  JE  the  Horeb 
section  Ex  xxxii-xxxiv  immediately  preceded  the  departure  in  Num 
X  29  ff,  and  stood  consequently    in    near   proximity   to    the    manna 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  Ill 

scene.  Bacon  accordingly  conjectures  that  this  passage  once  stood 
after  Ex  xxxiii  3  and  before  xxxiii  12.  In  the  combination  of  J  and 
E  these  verses  were  displaced  by  the  insertion  of  the  account  of  the 
Tent  of  Meeting,  and  were  woven  into  the  nearest  appropriate  situa- 
tion, where  (on  this  view)  they  have  dislocated  the  connexion  of  13 
with  4-lOa." 

In  plain  English  this  means  that  an  imbecile  (called  a  re- 
dactor) found  certain  narratives,  chopped  them  up  into  sec- 
tions of  unequal  length,  and  subsequently  put  them  together 
in  a  different  order  without  regard  to  their  sense.  "  The  in- 
sertion of  the  account  of  the  Tent  of  Meeting "  in  a  place 
where  it  produces  endless  confusion  and  the  "  weaving "  of 
these  verses  into  their  present  position  are  among  the  results 
of  this  remarkable  procedure.  On  the  whole  the  theory 
affords  striking  illustration  of  the  boundless  credulity  of  the 
higher  critics. 

The  fact  is  that  these  writers  have  not  the  slightest  under- 
standing of  human  nature.  Consequently  they  will  believe 
anything  except  that  there  is  a  deal  of  human  nature  in  man; 
and  it  is  to  be  feared  that  for  this  reason  this  chapter  miust  al- 
ways remain  unintelligible  to  them.  But  this  does  not  exempt 
us  from  the  duty  of  explaining  it. 

Attention  must  be  given  to  two  points,  the  feelings  of  the 
people  and  the  feelings  of  Moses.  The  Israelites  had  been 
supported  mainly  on  manna  for  more  than  a  year.  Of  course 
there  had  been  the  first  flight  of  quails,  and  no  doubt  there 
were  occasional  slaughterings  of  animals  belonging  to  their 
flocks  and  herds,  but  the  staple  and  continuous  diet  had  been 
manna.  That  it  had  grown  monotonous  and  nauseating  was 
an  inevitable  result,  and  so  far  the  complaint  of  the  people  was 
entirely  reasonable  and  was  probably  viewed  by  Moses  with 
some  sympathy.  But  as  frequently  happens,  a  reasonable 
grievance  led  to  conduct  that  may  more  easily  be  understood 


113  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

than  justified.  The  people  used  language  that  savored  of 
doubt  of  the  Divine  power  and  more  than  savored  of  ingrati- 
tude and  infidelity.  As  a  natural  result  their  complaints  pro- 
duced in  their  leader  a  feeling  of  despondency  from  which  no 
man  could  have  been  exempt  in  similar  circumstances.  In  his 
discouragement  he  felt  the  task  that  had  been  set  him  too  much 
for  his  strength  and  he  took  the  profoundly  human  course  of 
blaming  Him  who  had  laid  the  burden  upon  him. 

Again  in  human  affairs  the  proximate  or  immediate  cause 
of  any  action  frequently  differs  from  and  conceals  a  motive 
which,  though  really  efficient,  appears  more  remote.  It  is 
the  last  straw  that  breaks  the  camel's  back.  This  principle 
finds  illustration  in  the  complaint  "I  am  not  able  to  bear 
all  this  people  alone,  because  it  is  too  heavy  for  me."  It 
would  probably  be  wrong  to  regard  these  words  as  the  expres- 
sion of  a  feeling  experienced  for  the  first  time  on>  this  occa- 
sion. Rather  should  we  see  in  them  the  final  utterance  of  a 
sentiment  which  had  grown  in  strength  with  each  successive 
incident.  "  Ye  have  been  rebellious  against  the  Lord  from 
the  day  that  I  knew  you  "  (Deut.  ix.  24).  And  the  rebelHous- 
ness  would  be  felt  the  more  keenly  at  each  successive  episode 
— especially  after  the  great  events  at  Sinai.  Hence  the  com- 
plaint and  prayer  of  verses  14  and  15.  Hence,  too,  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  seventy  elders  in  verses  16  f.,  24-30,  in  direct 
reply  (verse  17  ad  iin.)  to  the  prayer  of  14  f. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  frame  a  narrative  which  would  be 
truer  to  human  nature — and  therefore  less  in  accordance  with 
the  standards  of  the  higher  critics — than  that  contained  in 
these  verses. 

It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  the  critics  wrench  16  f.,  34b-30, 
from  the  context,  claiming  that  a  fatuous  redactor,  finding  two 
utterly  unrelated  stories,  tore  them  in  shreds  and  then  made  a 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  113 

chess-board  pattern  out  of  the  fragments.  Mr.  Carpenter,  on 
the  ground  of  the  alleged  position  of  the  Tent  of  Meeting,  the 
appearance  of  Joshua  and  the  "  prophetic  conceptions,"  wishes 
to  give  these  verses  to  E ;  but,  as  Exodus  xviii.  has  already 
been  assigned  to  that  source,  he  is  in  a  difficulty.  Therefore  to 
quote  his  own  expression :  "  By  the  side  of  the  secular  judges 
over  the  '  small  matters,'  the  coadjutor-prophets  must  be  as- 
signed to  Es."  It  is  a  pity  that  Mr.  Carpenter  did  not  succeed 
in  carrying  his  discrimination  between  a  judge  and  a  prophet 
a  little  further,  and  recognize  that  the  relief  here  sought  by 
Moses  has  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the  transaction  of  judicial 
business.  An  excellent  example  of  the  activity  of  these  elders  is 
to  be  found  in  Numbers  xvi.  25.  It  cannot  reasonably  be 
claimed  that  there  is  anything  judicial  about  the  action  there 
attributed  to  them.  They  support  Moses  in  a  rebellion  against 
his  authority.  In  saying  this  we  do  not  mean  to  suggest  that 
these  seventy  elders  did  not  assist  in  hearing  difficult  matters 
(not  easy  cases  like  the  captains  of  thousands,  etc.)  and  trans- 
acting public  business.  But  the  narrative  leaves  no  doubt  that 
the  primary  object  of  their  appointment  was  to  give  Moses 
much-needed  human  support  in  maintaining  his  influence  and 
authority  over  a  people  who  were  unfortunately  prone  to  rebel- 
lion, and  that  this  object  was  achieved  by  conferring  on  the 
elders  a  portion  of  the  Divine  spirit,  and  so  rendering  them 
effective  and  whole-hearted  exponents  and  supporters  of  the 
aims  and  policy  of  their  leader.  The  relief  given  was  chiefly  by 
means  of  their  sympathy,  their  cooperation,  their  family  influ- 
ence, and  their  general  effect  on  public  opinion,  and  only  in  a 
very  minor  degree  by  their  assistance  in  the  judicial  determina- 
tion of  cases. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Before  treating  of  the  critical  partition  of  individual  chap- 
ters, we  propose  to  clear  the  ground  by  grappling  with  the 
great  catena  of  difficulties  affecting  the  concluding  chapters  of 
Numbers.  Here  there  is  some  justification  for  the  critics.  That 
is  to  say,  the  difficulties  are  not  (like  so  many  that  we  have 
considered)  purely  factitious.  There  really  are  problems  which 
can  be  solved  only  by  textual  criticism.  While  we  meet  with 
the  characteristics  that  are  unhappily  so  familiar,  it  is  at  least 
pleasant  to  think  that  the  sorry  performances  of  the  critics  are 
due  in  part  to  genuine  embarrassment,  and  not  solely  to  the 
causes  which  must  elsewhere  be  held  responsible. 

At  the  same  time  the  position  is  not  without  its  irony.  We 
have  found  a  difficulty  in  the  narrative  which  has  escaped  the 
critics,  and  we  have  detected  a  gloss  which  has  eluded  their 
vigilance.  Moreover,  we  are  in  the  position  of  having  to  de- 
nounce Drs.  Driver  and  Gray  for  their  artificial  harmonistic  in- 
terpretations. In  fact,  a  very  curious  thing  has  happened.  In 
many  instances  the  higher  critics  can  at  least  claim  the  merit  of 
having  killed  an  impossible  exegesis.  In  this  case  they  have 
adopted  it.  All  the  supposititious  sources  are  unanimous  on  one 
point — that  Israel  spent  the  bulk  of  the  forty  years  in  wan- 

114 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


115 


% 


SKETCH   MAP  OF  THE  REGION  OF  THE  FORTY  YEARS    WANDERING 
OF  THE   CHILDREN  OF  ISRAEL. 

For  a  powerful  presentation  of  evidence  that  this  whole  region  had 
a  larger  rainfall,  and  was  much  more  productive,  at  the  time  of 
the  Exodus  than  it  is  now,  see  the  article  on  "The  Climate  of 
Ancient  Palestine"  (Bulletin  of  the  American  Geographical 
Society,  vol.  xl.,  1908),  by  Ellsworth  Huntington,  whose  ex- 
tensive travels  in  Central  Asia  and  thorough  investigation  give 
exceptional  weight  to  his  conclusions.  [We  are  indebted  to 
the  kindness  of  Professor  G.  Frederick  Wright  for  this  note.] 


116  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

dering,  not  at  Kadesh.  The  critics  are  therefore  unshakably 
convinced  that  the  IsraeHtes  were  at  Kadesh  the  whole  time. 
Indeed,  this  so  deUghts  Wellhausen's  heart  that  he  holds  that 
they  never  went  to  Sinai  at  all,  but  spent  that  time  also  at 
Kadesh,  All  the  sources  agree  in  making  the  Israelites  go  to 
Sinai:  and  the  theophany  there  is  the  dominant  and  central 
fact  of  their  whole  history.  All  the  sources  agree  in  making 
the  Israelites  sojourn  only  a  short  time  at  Kadesh,  and  wander 
for  the  bulk  of  the  forty  years.  What  further  proof  could 
any  higher  critic  require  that  the  Israelites  were  never  at 
Sinai  or  that  they  spent  the  best  part  of  the  forty  years  at 
Kadesh? 

As  we  are  to  deal  with  a  chain  of  difficulties  that  at  first 
sight  might  appear  to  be  unrelated,  we  find  it  impossible  to 
follow  our  usual  procedure  of  setting  out  the  critical  case  first 
and  then  demolishing  it.  In  this  instance  we  must  first  prove 
that  the  critical  and  traditional  views  are  alike  untenable,  and 
then  set  up  our  own  case.  When  we  have  established  that,  we 
can  return  to  the  critics  and  show  how  at  all  points  it  answers 
their  criticism.  But,  as  an  introduction  to  the  subject,  we  may 
quote  from  Dr.  Gray  an  account  of  the  critical  view  of  the  so- 
journ in  the  Wilderness.  He  is  commenting  on  the  words  "  in 
the  first  month  "   in  Numbers  xx.  la : — 

" .  .  .  .  the  number  of  the  year  has  been  omitted  deliberately.  In 
all  probability  it  was  the  fortieth;  for  (1)  the  event  to  be  related 
is  given  as  the  reason  why  Moses  and  Aaron,  who  had  led  the  peo- 
ple all  through  their  wanderings,  are  cut  off  just  before  the  en- 
trance into  Canaan  (ver.  22-29  xxvii  12-14,  Dt.  xxxii  48-52  (P), 
and  Dt.  xxxiv  (so  far  as  it  is  derived  from  P));  (2)  In  chap, 
xxxiii,  which,  though  not  derived  from,  is  dominated  by  Pg,  the 
wilderness  of   Zin^   is  the  station  next  before  Mount   Hor,  where 

^In  this  and  other  instances,  we  have  accommodated  Dr.  Gray's 
spelling  of  Hebrew  names  to  ordinary  English  usage.  The  lack  of 
common  sense  which  is  so  characteristic  of  the  critics  is  very  con- 
spicuous in  this  matter.    Thus  Dr.  Gray  writes  in  his  preface :   "  The 


Essays  in  Pentatenchal  Criticism.  117 

Aaron  died  in  the  fifth  month  of  the  fortieth  year.  Thus,  according 
to  Pg,  Kadesh  was  merely  visited  by  the  people  for  a  short  period 
at  the  end  of  the  wanderings.  In  JE  Kadesh  is  the  scene  of  a  pro- 
longed stay.  The  people  go  thither  straight  from  Sinai  (cp.  xiii  21), 
and  are  still  there  at  the  end  of  the  period  of  wanderings  (ver.  14). 
To  this  source,  therefore,  and  perhaps  in  particular  to  J,  we  may 
refer  and  the  people  abode  in  Kadesh;  cp.  Jud.  xi  17  and  also  for 
the  vb.  {l^'^))  Nu.  xxi  25,  31  (JE).  ...  In  Dt.  chap  i  f.  we  find  a 
third  view  of  the  place  of  Kadesh  in  the  wanderings,  viz.  that  Israel 
'abode'  (3D'''1)  there  for  an  indefinite  time  (not  exceeding  a  few 
months)   at  the  deginning  of  the  period."     (Numbers,  pp.  259  f.) 

It  will  be  well,  before  entering  more  fully  into  the  matter, 
to  consider,  first,  the  nature  of  the  problems  that  we  have  to 
solve;  and,  secondly,  the  requisites  of  a  true  solution.  Apart 
from  minor  difficulties,  we  really  have  to  face  four  different 
problems,  which  at  present  are  inextricably  entangled.  We 
have  to  solve  the  historical  problem,  i.e.  we  must  find  out  what 
really  happened ;  then  we  have  to  deal  with  two  literary  prob- 
lems, i.e.  we  must  discover  how  the  narrative  in  Numbers  was 
shaped  and  how  the  speech  in  Deuteronomy  was  framed ;  and, 
lastly,  we  have  to  consider  how  the  narrative  in  Numbers 
reached  its  present  form.  Of  these  the  composition  of  Deuter- 
onomy gives  no  serious  trouble.  The  order  is  largely  rhetor- 
ical. But  it  is  impossible  to  be  certain  about  the  details  of  the 
other  three  problems  when  our  information  is  so  defective. 
Thus,  if  the  itinerary  in  Numbers  xxxiii.  be  considered,  it  will 
^  I  have  transliterated  by  S,  since  Z,  when  comparison  has  to  be 
made  with  the  Arabic,  is  misleading;  this  necessitates  substituting 
Selophehad,  Soan,  etc.,  for  the  familiar  Zelophehad,  Zoan,  etc."   It  is 

probable  that  not  one  Bible  reader  In  one  hundred  thousand  desires 
to  make  comparisons  with  the  Arabic:  it  is  certain  that  such  com- 
parisons when  made  by  those  who  are  too  indolent  or  too  stupid  to 
master  the  Hebrew  alphabet  and  ascertain  the  spellings  from  the 
original  could  possess  no  scientific  value.  On  the  other  hand,  pace 
Dr.  Gray  and  the  other  apostles  of  philological  pedantry,  such  trans- 
literations render  a  book  much  more  difficult  to  read,  and  are  likely 
to  conduce  to  its  earning  a  well-merited  obscurity. 


118  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

be  found  that  the  sites  of  the  great  majority  of  places  named 
are  unknown.  We  cannot,  therefore,  be  sure  of  the  exact  or- 
der in  which  they  should  come.  Again,  there  are  many  points 
that  we  must  leave  open  because  they  are  not  touched  by  our 
investigation  in  any  positive  and  definite  manner.  For  exam- 
ple, we  cannot  decide  whether  certain  portions  of  the  Penta- 
teuch were  originally  transmitted  orally  or  in  writing.  The 
statements  of  the  book  itself  as  to  the  writing  of  certain  docu- 
ments do  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  whole  work  was  origi- 
nally written,  and  we  shall  not  find  in  our  present  investigation 
any  conclusive  reason  favoring  a  theory  of  either  written  or 
oral  tradition  against  the  alternative.  But,  whatever  uncertain- 
ty may  continue  to  enshroud  minor  details  or  matters  that  in 
this  connection  are  unimportant,  the  main  outlines  of  our  solu- 
tion must  of  course  be  clear.  And  this  leads  us  to  consider 
what  requirements  a  solution  must  fulfil. 

All  scientific  investigation  having  for  its  object  the  ascer- 
tainment of  truth  rests  on  a  single  canon,  —  the  coincidences 
of  truth  are  infinite.  In  other  words,  the  true  hypothesis  ex- 
plains all  difficulties.  Hence  our  strength  lies  in  the  number 
of  perplexities  that  beset  us.  A  hypothesis  that  accounted  for 
one  set  of  phenomena  would  possess  oxily  a  very  moderate  de- 
gree of  probability;  a  hypothesis  that  accounts  for  two  sets 
would  be  more  than  twice  as  probable,  for  each  set  tests  and 
controls  any  theory  that  might  account  for  the  other  set  if  it 
stood  isolated.  And  with  every  additional  set  of  phenomena 
explained  the  probability  rises  progressively.  Now  in  this  in- 
stance we  cannot  complain  of  any  lack  of  tests ;  for  the  chap- 
ters treating  of  the  period  from  the  arrival  at  Kadesh-barnea 
onwards  are  rich  in  embarrassments,  if  in  nothing  else.  The 
true  solution  must  inevitably  satisfy  many  conditions.  In  the 
first  instance,  it  must  provide  an  intelligible  account  of  the 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  119 

transactions  during  that  period.  It  must  harmonize  all  the 
sources.  It  must  fit  such  geographical  data  as  are  reasonably 
well  ascertained.  It  must  remove  all  chronological  impossibil- 
ities. It  must  account  for  any  other  difficulties  presented  by 
the  narrative  of  the  present  text.  It  must  solve  the  literary 
problem.  It  must  provide  an  adequate  motive  for  every  volun- 
tary human  action  postulated:  it  must  suggest  an  adequate 
explanation  of  every  human  error  supposed  —  and  when  we 
say  adequate  we  mean  such  as  accords  with  the  ordinary  senti- 
ments and  habits  of  mankind,  and  the  known  characteristics  of 
the  Hebrew  race.  A  hypothesis  which  satisfied  all  these  tests 
would  have  a  very  reasonable  chance  of  being  correct. 

In  the  light  of  these  observations,  we  turn  to  examine  the 
narrative  of  JE  as  believed  by  the  higher  critics. 

In  Numbers  xiv.  25  (JE)  we  find  an  express  command  to 
leave  Kadesh :  "  To-morrow  turn  ye,  and  get  you  into  the 
wilderness  by  the  way  to  the  Red  Sea."  It  is  true  that  the 
execution  of  this  command  was  delayed  by  the  disobedience 
of  the  Israelites  who  went  up  and  fought  an  unsuccessful 
battle  (xiv.  44  f.).  This  may  have  consumed  a  certain 
amount  of  time,  and  may  have  caused  a  further  delay  for  tend- 
ing the  wounded,  etc, ;  but,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  critics,  no 
notice  at  all  was  taken  of  the  command  for  thirty-eight  years. 
Then  the  water-supply  proved  insufficient,  and  the  Israelites — 
who  appear  to  have  borne  the  pangs  of  thirst  for  this  period 
without  a  murmur — began  to  complain.  Moses — somewhat 
unreasonably  it  may  be  thought — was  very  angry  at  the  idea 
that  after  thirty-eight  years  the  Israelites  should  wish  to 
drink,  and  the  episode  of  striking  the  rock  occurred.  Next, 
messengers  were  sent  to  the  king  of  Edom  requesting  per- 
mission to  pass  through  his  land.  The  permission  was  re- 
fused, and  Moses,  in  accordance  with  the  command  he  had 


120  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

received  thirty-eight  years  previously,  set  out  "  by  the  way  to 
the  Red  Sea,  to  compass  the  land  of  Edom."  This  is  the 
story  of  the  wanderings,  according  to  JE.  In  the  circum- 
stances it  is  perhaps  not  surprising  that  D,  who  had  JE  before 
him,  put  the  events  in  a  different  order,  and  that  the  higher 
critics  should  be  able  to  detect  striking  discrepancies  between 
Deuteronomy  and  Numbers. 

It  will  be  seen  at  once,  that,  quite  apart  from  either  the  old 
and  well-known  difficulties  as  to  the  concluding  chapters  of 
Numbers  or  the  testimony  of  Deuteronomy,  there  are  two 
glaring  impossibilities  in  the  narrative  we  have  outlined: 
First,  the  story  about  compassing  the  land  of  Edom  breaks 
down  utterly.  It  cannot  be  that  Moses  waited  thirty-eight 
years,  after  receiving  the  Divine  command  to  turn  "  to-mor- 
row," without  taking  any  action  whatever.  Nor  is  it  possible 
that  he  should  then  have  sent  to  the  king  of  Edom  for  per- 
mission to  take  a  route  which  did  not  coincide  with  that  com- 
manded by  God.  Indeed  the  Divine  command  to  compass  the 
land  of  Edom  is  obviously  subsequent  in  time  to  the  request 
for  permission  to  cross  it,  and  both  the  command  and  the  nar- 
rative of  its  fulfilment  in  xxi.  4b  must  belong  closely  togeth- 
er. Nor  is  the  other  impossibility  less  flagrant.  It  is  easily 
intelligible  that  the  Israelites  may  have  found  sufficient  water 
at  Kadesh  when  they  arrived  and  that  as  the  season  advanced 
the  water  failed;  but  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable 
either  that  the  water  after  sufficing  for  thirty-eight  years  sud- 
denly failed  or  that  the  Israelites  lived  without  it  for  that 
period  and  then  grumbled. 

We  were  so  much  impressed  by  this  latter  point,  and  by 
the  statement  in  xx.  1,  that  "  the  children  of  Israel  came  into 
the  wilderness  of  Zin,"  as  contrasted  with  the  location  of 
Kadesh  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran,  that  we  formerly  held  that 


Essays  in  Fentateuchal  Criticisfn.  121 

Kadesh-barnea  was  not  identical  with  the  Kadesh  in  the 
wilderness  of  Zin  that  was  called  Meribah  (Churchman,  June, 
1906).  Further  investigation  of  facts  which  at  first  sight  ap- 
peared to  have  no  obvious  bearing  on  this  problem  has,  how- 
ever, suggested  to  us  that  another  explanation  may  be  correct. 
We  begin  by  considering  the  internal  evidence  of  the  order 
of  events  supplied  by  JE.  We  have  already  laid  stress  on  the 
impossibility  of  the  message  to  the  king  of  Edom  having 
originally  preceded  the  command  to  compass  his  territory. 
There  is,  however,  another  passage  which  is  clearly  misplaced. 
In  Numbers  xxi.  1-3  we  find  narrated  a  victory  over  the  king 
of  Arad  in  the  Negeb.    On  this,  Dr.  Gray  writes  as  follows : — 

"The  Canaanites  of  the  Negeb  (under  the  king  of  Arad,  a  place 
some  50  or  60  miles  almost  due  N.  of  Kadesh),  hearing  of  Israel's 
advance  in  the  direction  of  their"  territory  take  the  offensive,  fight 
against  Israel,  and  take  some  of  them  captives.  Israel  vow  to  the 
LoED,  if  granted  revenge,  to  place  the  Canaanite  cities  under  the  ban. 
Success  is  granted  them,  the  ban  is  put  into  force,  and  the  region  or 
city  (?  Arad)  is  consequently  called  Hormah  (Ban). 

"  It  has  long  been  recognised  that  the  section  is,  in  part  at  least, 
out  of  place,  and  does  not  refer,  as  from  the  position  which  the  com- 
piler has  given  it  it  should  do,  to  the  period  spent  at  Mt.  Hor  (xx 
22  xxi  4),  nor,  indeed,  to  any  time  immediately  before  the  Israelites 
took  their  departure  to  the  E.  of  Jordan.  For  why,  as  Reland  per- 
tinently asked,  should  they  abandon  the  country  in  the  S.  of  Canaan 
W.  of  the  Arabah,  in  which  they  had  just  proved  themselves  vic- 
torious? ....  It  is  difficult  to  reach  any  certain  conclusion  as  to  the 
original  position  of  the  section  ....  the  story  did  not,  even  in  JE, 
stand  after  xx  21  and  before  xxi  4 ;  for  that  passage  speaks  of  the 
Hebrews  taking  a  southern  course  from  Kadesh;  the  present  inci- 
dent implies  that  they  were  moving  towards  the  Negeb,  which  lies 
N.  of  Kadesh."  (Numbers,  pp.  271  f.) 

This  section  cannot  be  assigned  to  any  period  after  the  de- 
parture from  Kadesh  to  compass  the  land  of  Edom,  for  the 
Israelites  would  not  have  been  in  the  neighborhood.  But,  if 
it  precedes  the  departure,  the  reason  for  the  evacuation  of  the 
country    immediately  becomes  clear.     After    this    victory   the 


122  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Israelites  sustained  a  defeat  in  which  they  were  driven  to  the 
very  place  which  they  had  dedicated,  for  in  xiv.  45  the 
Hebrew  has  not  Hormah,  but  the  Hormah.  This  order  is 
again  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  xxi.  3  explains  the  calling 
of  a  place  by  this  name,  while  xiv.  45  assumes  that  it  already 
has  this  name.  Against  this  we  have  to  place  a  sentence  in  the 
present  form  of  the  itinerary  in  Numbers  xxxiii.,  which  dis- 
tinctly assigns  the  Arad  campaign  to  a  later  period.  But  we 
think  this  verse  an  obvious  gloss  inserted  by  a  late  reader  who 
had  before  him  the  present  text  of  Numbers,  and  scribbled  a 
note  meaning  that  this  was  the  proper  date  to  which  this  in- 
cident must  be  assigned. 

We  print  xxi.  la  and  xxxiii.  40  side  by  side : — 

NUMBEES  XXI.  la.  NUMBERS    XXXIII.    40. 

And  the  Canaanite,  the  king  of  And  the  Canaanite,  the  king  of 

Arad,  which  dwelt  in  the  Negeb,  Arad.  which  dwelt  in  the  Negeb 

heard  tell   that   Israel   came   by  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  heard  of 

the    way    of    Atharim ;    and    he  the   coming   of   the   children   of 

fought  against  Israel,  etc.  Israel. 

It  will  be  observed  that  xxxiii.  40  looks  like  a  quotation 
from  memory  of  the  earlier  verse.  It  adds  nothing  to  our  in- 
formation,— it  stands  without  any  sequel;  it  leads  to  nothing, 
and  expresses  nothing  intelligible.  It  can  only  be  a  note  re- 
ferring back  to  the  narrative  beginning  with  this  verse.  We 
therefore  think  that  it  is  a  late  gloss,  and  should  be  expelled 
from  the  text.  After  forming  this  opinion,  we  were  confirmed 
in  it  by  the  discovery  that  the  verse  is  omitted  in  Lagarde's 
edition  of  the  Lucianic  recension  of  the  Septuagint,  being 
wanting  in  three  out  of  the  four  MSS.  on  which  he  here  re- 
lies. 

The  next  step  must  be  to  compare  Deuteronomy  with  Num- 
bers ;  but,  in  doing  so,  certain  cautions  must  be  borne  in  mind. 
An  orator  does  not  necessarily  adhere  exactly  to  chronology. 
His  aim  being  to  move  men's  minds,  not  to  produce  an  exact 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


123 


record  of  events,  he  naturally  adopts  whatever  means  may 
seem  to  him  most  suited  to  his  purpose.  A  historian  also 
may  deliberately  prefer  a  topical  order  to  a  chronological.  The 
actual  order  of  events  might  easily  differ  from  the  original 
order  of  both  Deuteronomy  and  Numbers. 


DEUTEEONOMY. 

i     19a     Leave  Horeb 


19b  Arrival  at  Kadesh- 
barnea 

22-25  Despatch  of  the  spies 
to  Eshcol  and  their 
report 


NUMBEES. 

X  11  Departure  (second  year, 
second  month,  twentieth 
day) 

XX  la  Arrival  at  Kadesh  in  the 
first  month  of  an  unspeci- 
fied year 

xiii 


26       Rebelliousness    of    the 
people 

xiii  30  ff 

35f      Sentence    on    the    Is- 
raelites except  Caleb 

xiv,  23  fiC 

37       Anger  with  Moses 

XX    12 

40    "Turn    you,     and    take 
your  journey  into  the 
wilderness  by  the  way 
to  the  Red  Sea" 

xiv  25 

41-44  Expedition  by  the   Is- 
raelites:  their  defeat 

xiv  40-43 

45       The    Israelites    return 
and    weep    before    the 
Lord 

46    "  So  ye  abode  in  Kadesh 
many  days" 

XX  lb  "And  the  people  abode  in 
Kadesh  " 

Then  we  turned,  and 
took  our  journey  into 
the  wilderness  by  the 
way  to  the  Red  Sea, 
as  the  Lord  spake  un- 
to me;  and  we  com- 
passed Mount  Seir 
many  days " 


XX  22a  Departure  from  Kadesh 
xxi  4b  ff  by  the  way  to  the  Red 

Sea,  to  compass  the  land 

of  Edom,  &c 


Command 
north 


to 


turn 


4-8a  Passage  through  the 
border  of  the  Edom- 
ites 


XX  23 "  In  Mount  Hor,  by  the 
border  of  the  land  of 
Edom  " 


124  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

DEUTERONOMY.  NUMBEBS. 

8b  f   Passage    through    the      xxi  11  The  wilderness  which   is 
wilderness   of   Moab  before  Moab 

13  f     Crossing  the  brook  Ze-  12  Brook  Zered 

red  thirty-eight  years 
after  the  departure 
from   Kadesh-barnea 

18  ff    Passing   over   Ar,   the 
border  of  Moab 

24       Passing  over   the   val-  13  Passing  over  the  Arnon 

ley  of  Arnon 

This  table  suggests  several  questions.  The  first  concerns 
the  date  of  the  arrival  at  Kadesh.  Thirty-eight  years  elapsed 
trom  the  departure  to  the  time  of  crossing  the  brook  Zered.  It 
may  be  supposed  that  these  thirty-eight  years  were  composed  as 
follows:  part  of  the  third  year,  the  fourth  to  the  thirty-ninth 
inclusive,  and  part  of  the  fortieth  year.  These  may  have 
amounted  to  thirty-seven  years  or  less  according  to  our 
modern  reckoning,  but,  according  to  Hebrew  usage,  could  be 
spoken  of  by  Moses  as  thirty-eight  years. 

Passing  from  this,  it  is  reasonably  clear  that  originally 
Deuteronomy  and  Numbers  both  told  the  same  story,  and  that 
the  text  of  Numbers  is  deranged.  In  one  instance  at  any 
rate — and  that  not  the  least  puzzling — we  get  a  clue  to  the 
reason  for  the  present  arrangement.  Nobody  knows  where 
Mount  Hor  is,  but  we  learn  from  Numbers  xx.  23 ;  xxxiii. 
37  that  it  is  by  the  border  of  the  land  of  Edom.  From  Deu- 
teronomy it  appears  that  at  the  close  of  the  wilderness  period 
the  Israelites  did  actually  pass  through  the  border  of  the 
Edomites,  but  on  the  eastern  side.  The  present  position  of 
the  narrative  of  Aaron's  death  appears  to  be  due  to  the  words 
"  by  the  border  of  the  land  of  Edom,"  which  has  led  the  per- 
son or  persons  responsible  for  the  present  arrangement  of  the 
Numbers  narrative  to  suppose  that  it  referred  to  the  same  ep- 
och as  the  mission  to  the  king  of  Edom.    Thus  Deuteronomy 


Essavs  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


125 


supplies  the  clue  to  the  order  of  events,  and  confirms  the  in- 
ference drawn  from  the  Numbers  narrative  that  the  journey  to 
compass  Edom  7'ia  the  Red  Sea  was  the  fulfilment  of  the.  com- 
mand in  Numbers  xiv.  25,  and  that  it  is  separated  from  that 
command  by  a  short  interval  of  time,  due  to  the  rebelliousness 
of  the  people,  not  by  thirty-eight  years,  and  it  shows  that  at 
one  time  Numbers  xx.  22a  ("And  they  journeyed  from  Ka- 
desh  ")  and  xxi.  4b  ("  by  the  way  to  the  Red  Sea,  to  compass 
the  land  of  Edom  ")  formed  a  continuous  sentence  which  has 
been  accidentally  separated  by  the  interposition  of  other  mat- 
ters.   This  will  be  clearly  seen  from  the  following  table : — 


NUM.  XIV.  25b. 

To-morrow  turn  ye, 
and  get  you  into  the 
wilderness  by  the 
way  to  the  Red  Sea. 


NUM.  XX.  22a; 
XXI.  4b. 

And  they  journeyed 
from  Kadesh  by  the 
way  to  the  Red  Sea, 
to  compass  the  land 
of  Edom. 


DEUT.  I.  40;  n.  1,  14. 

But  as  for  you,  turn 
you,  and  take  your 
journey  into  the  wil- 
derness by  the  way 
to  the  Red  Sea.  .  .  . 
Then  we  turned,  and 
took  our  journey  into 
the  wilderness  by 
the  way  to  the  Red 
Sea,  as  the  Lord 
spake  unto  me:  and 
we  compassed  Mount 
Seir  many  days.  .  .  . 
And  the  days  in 
which  we  came  from 
Kadesh-barnea,  until 
we  were  come  over 
the  brook  Zered, 
were  thirty  and  eight 
years. 


It  cannot  be  doubted  that  in  the  form  of  the  Numbers  nar- 
rative known  to  the  Deuteronomist  the  two  half  verses  in 
column  two  formed  a  continuous  sentence,  narrating  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  command  in  column  one  after  the  disobedience 
of  the  Israelites  and  their  subsequent  defeat.  We  see  clearly 
that  the  command  was  obeyed  in  the  third  year,  not  in  the 
fortieth,   and   that   the   present   chronological  discrepancy  be- 


126  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

tween  Deuteronomy  and  Numbers  on  this  point  is  merely  due 
to  derangement  in  the  Numbers  text.  The  march  round 
Edom,  in  both  "  sources,"  originally  began  in  the  third  year ; 
and  this  is  confirmed  by  Numbers  xiv.  33  (P),  where  D"'yj 
"  wanderers  "  should  in  all  apparent  likelihood  be  read  for 
D^jn  "  shepherds."  But  this  is  the  view  of  yet  another 
"  source."  Numbers  xxxii.  is  a  bone  of  contention  among 
the  critics.  It  combines  characteristics  of  JE,  D,  and  P.  Mr. 
Carpenter  assigns  the  bulk  of  it  to  Ps,  "  who  may  be  sup- 
posed to  have  freely  worked  up  earlier  materials  of  J  and  P  " 
(ad  loc).  Others  regard  it  as  belonging  to  JE,  which  of 
course  would  be  fatal  to  the  theory  that  in  that  narrative  the 
Israelites  sojourned  thirty-eight  years  at  Kadesh.  Its  state- 
ment is  unambiguous :  "  Thus  did  your  fathers,  when  I  sent 
them  from  Kadesh-barnea  to  see  the  land  ....  and  the  Lord's 
anger  was  kindled  against  Israel,  and  he  made  them  wander 
to  and  fro  in  the  wilderness  forty  years"  (ver.  8,  13).  It  is 
patent  that  this  writer  had  never  heard  of  the  alleged  thirty- 
eight  years'  sojourn  at  Kadesh.  And  even  this  does  not  ex- 
haust the  Pentateuchal  evidence.  For  reasons  which  will  pre- 
sently appear,  not  much  reliance  can  be  placed  on  the  present 
order  of  the  places  in  Numbers  xxxiii.  (the  itinerary),  but 
the  names  themselves  tell  a  curious  tale.  The  itinerary  knows 
of  the  compassing  by  the  way  of  the  Red  Sea,  for  Ezion- 
geber  (ver.  35  f.)  figures  in  the  list.  It  also  makes  the  visit  to 
Mount  Hor  subsequent  to  Ezion-geber.  It  is  true  that  at 
present  Kadesh  separates  the  two  names.  But,  in  a  list  every 
item  of  which  is  in  the  form  "And  they  journeyed  from  x  and 
pitched  in  y,"  there  are  endless  opportunities  for  error 
through  what  is  called  homoeoteleuton.  A  scribe  writes  the 
first  "  and  they  journeyed "  or  "  pitched,"  and  then  looks 
back  to   his   MS.      His   eye   lights   on  the  second  or  third  or 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  127 

fourth  occurrence  of  the  phrase,  and  he  proceeds  to  copy  what 
follows,  not  observing  that  he  has  omitted  one  or  more  lines. 
Then,  when  the  MS.  is  examined,  the  error  is  discovered,  and 
noted  in  the  margin,^  often  with  the  result  that,  when  a  fresh 
transcription  is  made,  the  marginal  passage  is  inserted  in  the 
wrong  place.  In  this  instance  the  visit  to  Kadesh  after  Ezion- 
geber  is  contradicted  by  Deuteronomy,  Judges  xi.  16  ff.,  the 
indications  of  the  JE  narrative,  and  Numbers  xxxii.  A 
glance  at  the  map  will  also  show  that,  geographically,  the 
order  is  absurd.  It  is,  therefore,  obvious  that  verse  36,  "  and 
pitched  in  the  wilderness,"  etc.,  to  "  Kadesh  "  in  verse  37  is 
misplaced.  This  may  be  accidental,  or  it  may  be  that  it  was 
erroneously  removed  to  its  present  place  by  somebody  who 
had  before  him  the  narrative  of  Numbers  xx.  f.  in  its  present 
order,  and  introduced  his  conjectural  emendation  into  the  text. 
These  clauses  should  come  either  immediately  or  soon  after 
Hazeroth  (ver.  18)  ;  but,  in  our  entire  ignorance  of  the  where- 
abouts of  most  of  the  places  mentioned,  their  exact  position 
cannot  be  determined  with  precision. 

The  above  arguments  deal  entirely  with  the  substance  of 
the  narrative.  There  is  a  small  point  on  the  form  which  tends 
to  confirm  them.  On  Deuteronomy  i.  46,  "And  ye  abode  in 
Kadesh,"  Dr.  Driver  writes :  "  The  phrase  refers  here  to  the 
period  immediately  following  the  defeat  at  Hormah;  but  in 
Nu.  XX  1  (JE)  it  is  used  of  the  period  just  before  the 
message  sent  by  Israel  to  the  Edomites,  38  years  subsequent- 
ly." This  is  very  artificial.  It  will  be  observed  that,  by  our 
change,  the  phrase  in  question  refers  to  the  whole  stay  of  a 
few  months'  duration  at  Kadesh  in  both  Numbers  and  Deuter- 

*  This  appears  to  have  actually  happened  in  verses  30-31  (the  visit 
to  Moseroth)  in  the  original  text  of  codex  F  (the  Ambrosian  codex) 
of  the  Septuagint. 


128  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

onomy  as  well  as  in  Judges  xi.  17,  and  is  no  longer  trans- 
ferred to  a  different  period.  A  similar  discrepancy  between 
"  compassed  Mount  Seir  "  in  Deuteronomy  ii.  1  and  the  use 
of  the  expression  in  Numbers  xxi.  4  also  disappears. 

Before  returning  to  the  events  preceding  the  departure  from 
Kadesh,  we  must  examine  xx.  22b-xxi.  4a.  This  passage 
falls  into  two  sections:  (1)  the  Arad  campaign  (xxi.  1-3); 
(2)  Mount  Hor  (xx.  22b-29 ;  xxi.  4a).  Now  we  know 
from  xxxiii.  38  f.  that  Aaron's  death  took  place  in  the  for- 
tieth year.  Both  in  xx.  23  and  xxxiii.  37  we  are  informed 
that  Mount  Hor  was  by  the  border  of  the  land  of  Edom,  and 
we  learn  from  Deuteronomy  ii.  4  that  the  Israelites  passed 
through  this  border  shortly  before  the  close  of  the  thirty-eight 
years.  Accordingly,  as  already  suggested,  it  must  be  inferred 
that  Mount  Hor  was  in  or  near  the  southeastern  or  eastern 
frontier  of  Edom,  where  the  Israelites  passed  near  the  end  of 
the  period  of  wandering  after  leaving  Ezion-geber,  not  by 
Kadesh,  which  was  on  the  western  border.  It  then  becomes 
clear  that  the  original  narrative  of  Numbers  probably  related 
how,  in  compassing  the  land  of  Edom,  the  children  of  Israel 
came  to  Elath  and  Ezion-geber,  and  turned  thence  northwards, 
passing  through  the  border  of  Edom.  The  narrative  then  con- 
tinued with  Numbers  xx.  22b-29 ;  xxi.  4a,  and  from  Mount 
Hor  it  brought  the  Israelites  to  the  station  before  Oboth  (xxi. 
10).  The  MS.,  having  sustained  damage  involving  the  loss 
of  a  few  verses,  was  arranged  on  what  appeared  to  be  the  true 
clue  afforded  by  "  the  border  of  the  land  of  Edom  "  in  xx.  23, 
which  seemed  to  point  to  this  as  referring  to  the  period  when 
the  Israelites  were  near  Kadesh  on  the  Edomite  frontier. 
Unfortunately  the  various  events  occurred  at  different  times, 
and  on  different  sides  of  Edom;  so  that  this  arrangement  of 
the  narrative  was  ruinous  to  the  sense. 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  129 

Nothing  similar  can  be  suggested  of  xxi.  1-3,  dealing  with 
the  Arad  campaign.  This  passage  appears  to  owe  its  present 
position  to  pure  accident.  As  already  stated,  Arad  lay  north 
of  Kadesh,  not  south,  and  there  is  obvious  displacement.  The 
arrangement  is  here  fortuitous,  as  when  a  leaf  drops  out  of  a 
book  and  is  inserted  in  a  wrong  place.  We  have  no  means  of 
judging  at  what  period  these  verses  were  inserted  between 
XX.  29  and  xxi,  4a.  As  already  pointed  out,  they  must  ori- 
ginally have  stood  somewhere  before  the  use  of  the  name 
Hormah  in  xiv.  45.  The  defeat  there  narrated  explains  the 
evacuation  of  the  country  in  which  the  Israelites  had  been  vic- 
torious. 

But  then  how  did  xiii.  f.  come  to  occupy  their  present  po- 
sition ?  We  have  already  seen  reason  to  believe  that  "  the 
border  of  the  land  of  Edom  "  in  xx.  23  led  to  an  erroneous 
location  of  the  narrative  of  Aaron's  death:  we  believe  that  a 
similar  clue  is  responsible  for  the  order  of  the  earlier  chap- 
ters. Numbers  xii.  16  brings  the  people  to  the  wilderness  of 
Paran.  Numbers  xiii.  3  tells  of  the  departure  of  the  spies 
from  that  wilderness.  What  more  natural  than  that  some 
editor,  searching  for  the  correct  order  of  the  narratives,  con- 
cluded that  this  should  immediately  follow  the  arrival  in  Pa- 
ran?  As  already  stated,  there  are  fatal  objections  to  the  ex- 
isting order  in  the  Hormah  narrative  and  the  message  to 
Edom.  Moreover,  there  are  chronological  indications.  From 
xiii.  20  we  learn  that  the  mission  of  the  spies  took  place  at 
the  time  of  the  first  ripe  grapes,  i.e.  apparently  about  July. 
But  the  arrival  at  Kadesh  occurred  in  the  first  month,  i.  e. 
about  the  early  spring.  The  Arad  campaign  and  the  negotia- 
tions with  Edom  would  fit  into  this  interval  very  suitably.  The 
other  narratives  in  the  chapters  affected  seem  to  be  for  the 
most  part   in  their   right   order.    The  words   of   Dathan  and 


130  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Abiram  in  Numbers  xvi.  14  are  extremely  forcible  if  they 
follow  a  defeat  which  once  for  all  put  an  end  to  all  hopes  of 
invasion  through  the  Negeb,  and  Numbers  xx.  3  appears  to 
refer  to  the  ending  of  that  rebellion.  Moreover  the  position 
of  the  rod  in  xx.  8  f.  points  back  to  xvii.  as  being  earlier  in 
order  of  time.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  no  clues  as  to 
the  relative  order  of  the  negotiations  with  Edom  and  the  Arad 
campaign.  Subject  to  this  caution  and  the  need  for  remember- 
ing that  the  narrative  may  not  have  been  chronological,  we 
suggest  the  following  arrangement :  Numbers  xii. ;  xx.  1, 
14-21 ;  xxi.  1-3 ;  xiii. ;  xiv. :  xvi.-xviii. ;  xx.  2-13,  22a ; 
xxi.  4b-9,  then  some  missing  verses,  bringing  the  Israelites 
to  the  head  of  the  gulf  of  Akabah  and  narrating  the 
turn  northwards  from  Elath  and  Ezion-geber,  then  xx. 
22b-29 ;  xxi.  4a,  and  some  lost  words  telling  of  the  ar- 
rival at  the  station  before  Oboth.  We  have  omitted  xv. 
and  xix.  from  this  scheme,  because  there  are  no  indicia  of 
their  position,  and  they  do  not  affect  the  course  of  the  narra- 
tive. Numbers  xv.  32  might  refer  to  any  one  of  several  years. 
In  Numbers  xxxiii.  we  have  seen  reason  to  suppose  that  verse 
40  is  a  late  gloss,  and  that  36b-37a  should  come  several  verses 
earlier.  It  may  be  added  that  we  shall  hereafter  find  cause 
to  adopt  an  ancient  variant  that  has  been  preserved  by  the 
Syriac  in  verse  38,  —  "  first  "  for  "  fifth  "  in  the  number  of  the 
month. 

And  now  how  far  do  these  suggestions  comply  with  the 
tests  that  we  laid  down  when  entering  on  our  inquiry  into  these 
chapters?  Do  they  give  us  a  probable,  consistent,  and  intelli- 
gible narrative?  Do  they  harmonize  all  the  available  informa- 
tion? Do  they  remove  all  the  geographical  and  chronological 
difficulties?  Do  they  postulate  any  unaccountable  human  acts 
or  omissions? 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  131 

The  narrative  that  emerges  from  the  rearranged  text  is  in 
harmony  with  all  the  Hebrew  sources.  There  are  now  no 
discrepancies  on  the  various  points  of  the  narrative  between 
Deuteronomy  and  Numbers  or  between  different  chapters  of 
Numbers.  But  is  the  story  itself  probable,  self-consistent, 
and  clear?    That  question  is  best  answered  by  summarizing  it. 

After  leaving  Sinai,  the  Israelites  proceeded  by  leisurely 
stages  to  Kadesh-barnea.  We  have  no  information  as  to  the 
reason  for  their  consuming  many  months  on  the  journey,  but 
it  may  have  been  partly  for  purposes  of  discipline  and  organ- 
ization. In  the  early  spring  of  the  third  year  they  reached 
Kadesh-barnea,  south  of  the  Negeb.  The  place  has  been  iden- 
tified by  Rowlands  and  Trumbull  with  Ayn  Qadees,  and  this 
identification  is  now  generally  accepted.  From  this  base  of 
operations  they  could  pursue  either  of  two  lines  of  invasion. 
They  could  traverse  the  land  of  Edom  laterally,  and  operate 
from  the  east,  or  they  could  invade  the  Negeb  by  marching 
due  north  from  their  base.  The  first  alternative  required  the 
consent  of  the  Edomites.  This  was  sought  and  refused.  The 
second  alternative  was  then  attempted.  Either  before  or  dur- 
ing or  after  the  negotiations  with  Edom,  a  campaign  was 
actually  waged  in  the  Negeb,  resulting  in  the  defeat  of  the 
king  of  Arad,  and  spies  were  sent  out  to  explore  the  country. 
But,  on  hearing  their  report,  the  people  lost  heart,  and  it  be- 
came clear  that  success  could  not  be  expected  until  a  new  gen- 
eration had  grown  up.  The  order  was  therefore  given  to 
evacuate  Kadesh  and  compass  the  land  of  Edom.  But  the 
people  suddenly  veered  round  and  refused  to  obey.  In  de- 
fiance of  the  Divine  command  they  embarked  on  a  campaign  of 
conquest.  The  result  was  disastrous.  They  were  utterly  routed 
and  chased  to  Hormah,  the  scene  of  their  former  triumph. 

It  is  perhaps  to  this  that  the  famous  Israel  stele  erected  by 


132  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Merenptah,  who  is  usually  thought  to  have  been  the  Pharaoh 

of  the  Exodus,  relates.     The  material  portions  run  as  follows 

in   the  translation   given   by   Dr.  Driver  on  page  63  of   D.  G. 

Hogarth's  "Authority  and  Archaeology  "  : — 

"Vanquished  are  the  Tehennu  (Libyans);  the  Khita  (Hlttites) 
are  pacified;  Pa-Kan'ana  (Canaan)  is  prisoner  in  every  evil;  Ask- 
alni  (Ashkelon)  is  carried  away;  Gezer  is  taken;  Yenoam  is  anni- 
hilated; Yslraal  is  desolated,  its  seed  (or  fruit)  is  not;  Charu  has 
become  as  widows  for  Egypt." 

Of  these,  Charu  means  a  people  in  the  south  or  southeast 
of  Palestine,  but  the  identifications  of  Yenoam  vary.  Gezer 
lies  between  Joppa  and  Jerusalem,  and  Ashkelon  is  of  course 
also  in  the  south.  Hence  the  "  seed  "  might  well  refer  to  crops 
in  the  Arad  district,  or  (less  probably)  to  the  Kadesh  district, 
of  which  Trumbull  writes  as  follows : — 

"  It  has  a  mountain-encircled  plain  of  sufficient  extent  for  the  en- 
campment of  such  an  army  as  Kedor-la'omer's  or  such  a  host  as  Is- 
rael's. That  plain  is  arable,  capable  of  an  extensive  grain  or  grazing 
supply,  and  with  adjoining  wells  of  the  best  water."  (H.  Clay  Trum- 
bull, Kadesh-barnea,  pp.  311  f. ;  see  also  pp.  269  f.,  272  f.) 

It  should  be  added  that  the  inscription  may  be  based  on  re- 
ports from  Palestine,  and  does  not  necessarily  describe  a  con- 
flict between  Israel  and  an  army  from  Egypt.  It  may  merely 
refer  to  a  victory  won  by  natives  who  were  vassals  or  subject 
allies  of  Pharaoh. 

Whether  or  not  this  be  correct,  the  defeat  at  Hormah  must 
have  put  an  end  once  for  all  to  the  hopes  of  invading  Canaan 
successfully  from  the  south,  and  may  have  entailed  casualties 
that  involved  delaying  the  departure  from  Kadesh.  It  ap- 
pears to  have  had  immediate  results  within  the  Israelitish 
camp,  for  dissatisfaction  at  the  failure  to  conquer  Canaan 
seems  to  have  been  partly  responsible  for  the  conduct  of  Dath- 
an  and  Abiram :  "  Moreover  thou  hast  not  brought  us  into  a 
land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey  nor  given  us  inheritance  of 


Essays  hi  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  133 

fields  and  vineyards."  Then  came  the  failure  of  the  water 
and  the  incident  of  striking  the  rock.  We  have  seen  that  the 
arrival  at  Kadesh  took  place  in  the  first  month,  i.  e.  in  the 
early  spring.  Trumbull  visited  Kadesh  at  the  end  of  March 
( Kadesh-barnea,  p.  263).  He  gives  a  very  enthusiastic  des- 
cription of  the  place.  Mr.  Holland,  who  was  there  on  May 
16,  1878,  also  speaks  well  of  the  water-supply  (Palestine  Ex- 
ploration Fund  Quarterly,  Jan.  1884,  p.  9).  The  date  of  Mr. 
Rowlands's  visit  is  unfortunately  not  given.^  It  is,  however, 
quite  easy  to  understand  that,  as  the  season  advanced,  the  wa- 
ter-supply became  inadequate  for  the  unusually  extensive  de- 
mands of  the  Israelitish  tribes,  and  that  this  led  to  the  incident 
recorded  in  chapter  xx. 

At  the  end  of  a  stay  that  lasted  some  months  in  all,  the 
Israelites  left  Kadesh  by  the  way  to  the  Red  Sea,  and  never 
returned  to  it  during  the  period  of  the  wanderings.  Then  fol- 
lowed the  long  weary  circling  of  the  land  of  Edom,  and  at  the 
end  of  this  period,  on  the  journey  northwards  from  Ezion- 
gebcr,  Aaron  died  at  some  point  near  the  eastern  or  southeast- 
ern frontier  of  Edom  in  the  fortieth  year. 

Such  in  outline  is  the  narrative  that  emerges  from  our  re- 
arrangement of  the  text.  It  is  intelligible  and  self-consistent. 
How  enormous  are  the  difficulties  it  removes  has  already  been 
made  clear  in  part,  and  will  appear  more  fully  when  we  quote 
some  of  the  other  critical  objections  to  the  existing  text.  It 
remains  only  to  deal  with  the  chronological  difficulty. 

Aaron  died  in  the  fortieth  year,  according  to  the  accepted 
text,  on  the  first  day  of  the  fifth  month  (Num.  xxxiii.  38).  The 
Syriac  has,  however,  preserved  an  ancient  variant,  according 
to  which  the  event  took  place  on  the  first  day  of  the  first 

^Dr.  Gray  has  also  a  reference  to  an  account  of  the  place  in  the 
Biblical  World  for  May,  1901,  pp.  326-338.  It  describes  a  visit  on 
April  13,  1900,  and  speaks  of  the  water-supply  as  perennial. 


134  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

month.  The  better  to  examine  this  we  set  out  Colenso's  attack 
on  the  chronology. 

"(i)  We  are  told  that  Aaron  died  on  'the  first  day  of  the  fifth 
month '  of  the  fortieth  year  of  the  wanderings,  N.  xxxiiii.  38  and 
they  mourned  for  him  a  month,  N.  xx.  29. 

"(ii)  After  this,  'king  Arad  the  Canaanite  fought  against  Israel, 
and  took  some  of  them  prisoners ;'  whereupon  the  Israelites  attacked 
these  Canaanites,  and  '  utterly  destroyed  them  and  their  cities,'  N. 
xxi.  1-3,  —  for  which  two  transactions  we  may  allow  another 
month. 

"(iii)  Then  they  'journeyed  from  Mount  Hor,  by  the  way  of  the 
Red  Sea,  to  compass  the  land  of  Edom,*  N.  xxi.  4,  and  the  people 
murmured,  and  were  plagued  with  fiery  serpents,  and  Moses  set  up 
the  serpent  of  brass,  N.  xxi.  5-9,  —  for  all  which  we  must  allow,  at 
least,  a  fortnight. 

"(iv)  They  now  marched,  and  made  nine  encampments,  N.  xxi. 
10-20,  for  which  we  cannot  well  allow  less  than  a  month. 

" '  We  believe  that,  at  every  station,  at  least  three  days'  rest  must 
have  been  required.'    Kurtz,  iii.  p.  251. 

"(v)  Then  they  sent  messengers  to  Sihon,  who  'gathered  all  his 
people  together,  and  fought  against  Israel,'  and  *  Israel  smote  him 
with  the  edge  of  the  sword,'  and  '  possessed  his  land  from  Arnon  unto 
Jabbok,'  and  '  took  all  these  cities,  and  dwelt  in  all  the  cities  of  the 
Amorites,  in  Heshbon  and  in  all  the  daughters  thereof,'  N.  xxi. 
21-25,  —  for  which  we  may  allow  another  month. 

"(vi)  After  that  'Moses  sent  to  spy  out  Jaazer,  and  they  took 
the  villages  thereof,  and  drove  out  the  Amorites  that  were  there,' 
N.  xxi.  32,  —  say,  in  another  fortnight. 

"(vii)  Then  they  'turned  up  by  the  way  of  Bashan,  and  Og, 
the  king  of  Bashan  went  out  against  them,  and  they  smote  him,  and 
his  sons,  and  all  his  people,  until  there  was  none  left  him  alive,  and 
they  possessed  his  land,'  N.  xxi.  33-35.  For  all  this  work  of  cap- 
turing "  three-score  cities,  fenced  with  high  walls,  gates,  and  bars, 
besides  unwalled  towns,  a  great  many,'  D,  iii.  4,  5,  we  must  allow, 
at  the  very  least,  a  month. 

"Thus,  then,  from  the  *first  day  of  the  fifth  month,'  on  which 
Aaron  died,  to  the  completion  of  the  conquest  of  Og,  king  of  Bashan, 
we  cannot  reckon  less  altogether  than  six  months,  (and,  indeed,  even 
then  the  events  will  have  been  crowded  one  upon  another  in  a  most 
astonishing,  and  really  impossible,  manner,)  and  are  thus  brought 
down  to  the  first  day  of  the  eleventh  month,  the  very  day  on  which 
Moses  is  stated  to  have  addressed  the  people  in  the  plains  of  Moab, 
D.  i.  3. 

"And  now  what  room  is  there  for  the  other  events  which  are  re- 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  135 

corded  in  the  book  of  Numbers,  as  having  occurred  between  the  con- 
quest of  Bashan  and  the  address  of  Moses?  The  chief  of  these 
were : — 

"(1)     The  march  forward  to  the  plains  of  Moab,  N.  xxii.  1; 

"(2)  Balak's  sending  twice  to  Balaam,  his  journey,  and  prophe- 
syings,  xxii.  2-xxiv. ; 

"(3)  Israel's  'abiding'  in  Shittim,  and  committing  whoredom 
with  the  daughters  of  Moab,  xxv.  1-3; 

"(4)     The  death  of  24,000  by  the  plague,  xxv.  9; 

"(5)     The  second  numbering  of  the  people,  xxvi. ; 

"(6)  The  war  upon  Midian,  above  considered,  during  which  they 
*  burnt  all  their  cities,  and  all  their  goodly  castles,'  &c.,  and  surely 
must  have  required  a  month,  or  six  weeks  for  such  a  transaction." 
(The  Pentateuch,  etc..  Part  i.  2d  ed.,  pp.  144-146.) 

It  will  be  seen  that  our  rearrangement  of  the  text  has  elim- 
inated (ii)  and  (iii),  thus  saving  six  weeks  on  Colenso's  time- 
table. Moreover,  certain  other  criticisms  must  be  made. 
According  to  Deuteronomy  ii.  26,  ^Moses  sent  messengers  to 
Sihon  from  the  wilderness  of  Kedemoth.  This  appears  to  be 
identical  with  the  wilderness  of  Numbers  xxi.  11  ff.,  so  that 
Colenso  has  treated  as  consecutive  events  that  were  really 
contemporaneous.  (See  Gray,  Numbers,  p.  295.)  The  month 
for  the  nine  encampments  is  perhaps  excessive ;  but  as,  on  our 
view  of  the  true  order,  there  were  probably  more  than  nine 
encampments,  no  substantial  reduction  could  be  effected  there. 
But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  campaigns  against  Sihon  and  Og 
were  both  decided  by  single  battles,  and  may  perhaps  have  oc- 
cupied less  time  than  Colenso  allows,  and  some  of  the  other 
events  may  have  been  synchronous.  It  is  therefore  perhaps 
not  quite  impossible  that  the  established  reading  is  correct,  but 
the  Syriac  certainly  seems  preferable.  Dr.  Gray  (Numbers, 
p.  xlv)  attacks  the  chronology;  and,  as  he  imports  a  new  diffi- 
culty into  the  text,  perhaps  his  remarks  should  be  transcribed. 

".  .  .  .  Between  the  departure  from  Mt.  Hor  and  the  delivery  of 
Moses'  final  address  to  the  people  there  elapsed  not  more  than  five 
months  (cp.  xxi  4  xxxiii  38  xx  29,  Dt.  i  3).    Into  these  few  months 


136  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

there  is  now  compressed  the  journey  south  to  the  Gulf  of  Akabah, 
thence  north  to  the  Arnon,  the  despatch  of  messengers  to  the  Amor- 
ites,  war  with  the  Amorites  and  occupation  of  the  country  between 
Arnon  and  Jabbok,  the  attempt  of  Balak  to  get  Balaam  to  curse  Is- 
rael (this  alone,  if  Balaam  came  from  Pethor,  extending  over  at 
the  least  three  months),  the  intercourse  of  the  Israelites  with  the 
Moabite  women,  the  taking  of  the  second  census,  the  appointment 
of  Joshua,  the  war  with  Midian,  and  the  subsequent  seven  days  of 
purification  for  the  warriors;  and  in  addition  to  the  foregoing,  the 
communication  of  many  laws." 

Pethor,  it  must  be  explained,  is  identified  by  Dr.  Gray,  with 
the  Assyrian  Pitru;  but,  as  he  himself  admits,  this  identifica- 
tion is  philologically  unsound  (p.  325).  We  have  elsewhere 
shown  (Churchman,^  February,  1908,  pp.  90-92)  that  Aram- 
naharaim  is  identified  by  the  Bible  with  the  Damascus  region. 
The  true  criterion  of  the  distance  is  afforded  by  Genesis 
xxxi.  23,  from  which  it  appears  that  it  was  seven  days'  jour- 
ney :  though  of  course  it  does  not  follow  that  Balak' s  messen- 
gers consumed  seven  days  on  the  journey.  We  therefore  are 
not  prepared  to  go  the  length  of  saying  that  on  our  present 
knowledge  the  Hebrew  date  is  impossible:  but  we  think  the 
Syriac  overwhelmingly  more  probable. 

We  now  set  out  the  remaining  difficulties  that  disappear  on 
our  view : — ■ 

"  It  is  probable  that  P  related  neither  the  petition  to  Edom,  nor 
its  rejection;  and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  in  entire  disagreement 
from  the  foregoing  story,  he  represented  the  Israelites  as  actually 
crossing  the  northern  end  of  Edom  in  their  passage  from  Kadesh  on 
the  W.  to  the  E.  of  the  Arabah."     (Gray,  Numbers,  p.  264.) 

" .  .  .  .  But  however  this  may  be,  the  main  point  is  certain :  lyye- 
Abarim  lay  E.  of  the  Jordan  valley  (including  the  Arabah)  ;  and 
thus  the  narrative  of  Pg,  in  so  far  as  it  is  extant,  mentions  be- 
tween Mt.  Hor  (xx  22  xxi  4a)  on  the  W.,  and  lyye-Abarim  on  the 
E.,  of  the  Arabah  only  one  place,  Oboth  (the  site  of  which  is  un- 
known), and  gives  no  indication  whatever  that  the  passage  from 
W.  to  E.  was  made  by  a  long  detour  southwards  from  Kadesh  by 
the   head  of  the   Red   Sea.     The  fuller  itinerary  of  chap,   xxxiii, 

^The  Loudon  paper  of  that  name. 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  137 

which,  though  the  work  of  Ps,  is  in  the  main  governed  by  Pg's  point 
of  view,  mentions,  indeed,  a  larger  number  of  intervening  stations; 
but  it  also  gives  no  indication  of  a  detour  south.  It  is  therefore 
highly  probable  that  Pg  represented  the  people  marching,  unmo- 
lested and  with  ease,  straight  across  the  northern  end  of  Edom. 
Just  as  forty  years  before  the  spies  passed  through  the  whole 
length  of  Canaan  at  will,  so  now  the  Israelites  approach  Canaan  by 
the  direct  and  chosen  route  with  entire  disregard  of  the  people  then 
in  possession  of  the  country."     {Op.  cit.,  p.  282.) 

" .  .  .  .  Thus,  like  Pg,  the  itinerary  recognizes  no  southern  move- 
ment from  Kadesh."     (Op.  cit.,  p.  443.) 

"A  second  and  more  significant  instance  occurs  in  Num.  xx.  The 
Israelites  arrive  at  Kadesh  in  the  first  month  (ver.  1),  apparently  of 
the  third  year,  reckoning  from  the  Exodus,  the  last  previous  date 
marking  the  departure  from  Sinai,  in  the  second  month  of  the  sec- 
ond year  (x  11).  In  xx  22  the  march  is  resumed,  and  in  consequence 
of  the  refusal  of  Edom  to  allow  a  passage  through  its  territory,  a 
long  circuit  is  necessary.  The  first  stage  brings  them  to  Mount  Hor, 
where  Aaron  dies  upon  the  summit.  In  the  list  of  the  encampments 
in  xxxiii  37  this  incident  is  fixed  in  the  fortieth  year  of  the  wander- 
ings. Between  xx  1  and  22  ff  there  is  thus  an  interval  of  at  least 
thirty-seven  years  (cp  Dt  ii  14,  from  Kadesh  to  the  brook  Zered 
thirty-eight  years).  Is  it  credible  that  the  '  journals  '  of  Moses  found 
nothing  worthy  of  record  in  this  long  period  beyond  a  solitary  in- 
stance of  popular  discontent,  and  a  fruitless  embassy  to  the  king  of 
Edom?  Did  an  entire  generation  pass  away,  without  any  further 
trace  than  the  bones  of  its  *  fighting  men '  upon  the  wilderness? 
Only  at  a  later  day  could  imaginative  tradition  have  rounded  off 
the  whole  into  a  fixed  form  of  forty  years,  and  been  content  to  leave 
the  greater  part  a  blank."     (Oxford  Hexateuch  vol.  i.  p.  28.) 

"  [Dt]  i  37-38.  In  Nu.  xx  12  (cf.  xxvii  13  f.  Dt.  xxxii  50  f.) 
Moses  is  prohibited  to  enter  Canaan  on  account  of  his  presumption 
in  striking  the  rock  at  Kadesh  in  the  39th  year  of  the  Exodus :  here 
the  ground  of  the  prohibition  is  the  Lord's  anger  with  him  on  ac- 
count of  the  people^  (so  iii  26  iv  21),  upon  an  occasion  which  is 
plainly  fixed  by  the  context  for  the  2nd  year  of  the  Exodus,  37  years 
previously.  The  supposition  that  Moses,  speaking  in  the  JfOth  year. 
should  have  passed,  in  verse  37,  from  the  2nd  to  the  39th  year,  re- 
turning in  verse  39  to  the  2nd  year,  is  highly  improbable."  (Driver, 
Deuteronomy,  pp.  xxxvf.) 

"  [Dt]  i  46  ii  1.  14.  As  shown  in  the  notes  on  pp.  31-33  it  seems 
impossible  to  harmonize  the  representation  contained  in  these  pas- 

*A  very  little  knowledge  of  human  nature  would  explain  the  lan- 
guage of  Moses  in  these  passages. 


138  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

sages  with  that  of  Numbers ;  according  to  Nu.  xiv,  &c.,  the  38  years 
in  the  wilderness  were  spent  at  Kadesh :  according  to  Dt.  they  were 
spent  away  from  Kadesh  (ii  14),  in  wandering  about  Edom  (ii  1)." 
(Op.  cit.,  p.  xxxvi.) 

When  to  these  difficulties  are  added  the  incredibility  of  the 
view  that  the  water  at  Kadesh  failed  in  the  thirty-eighth  year 
of  the  sojourn,  the  impossibility  that  the  message  to  Edom 
could  have  followed  the  command  to  compass  the  land,  the 
further  impossibility  that  the  command  itself  was  ignored  for 
thirty-eight  years,  the  geographical  veto  of  the  theory  that  a 
southward  march  from  Kadesh  brought  the  Israelites  to  Arad 
in  the  North,  the  difficulty  of  understanding  the  evacuation  of 
the  conquered  territory  by  the  victorious  host,  the  improba- 
bility that  the  explanation  of  Hormah  should  have  followed 
the  first  use  of  the  name  with  the  definite  article,  the  chrono- 
logical monstrosities  and  the  awkwardness  of  supposing  that 
such  phrases  as  "  abode  "  are  used  differently  in  Deuteronomy 
and  Numbers,  some  idea  will  be  formed  of  the  nature  of  the 
problem.  And  if  it  be  asked  what  changes  we  effect  in  the  He- 
brew text  in  order  to  provide  the  solution,  the  answer  is  that 
in  one  instance  we  have  expelled  a  gloss  and  in  another  we 
have  altered  a  single  word  —  in  each  case  with  the  support  of 
an  ancient  Version.  Apart  from  this,  we  have  only  effected 
transpositions  that  were  necessitated  not  merely  by  inter- 
nal evidence,  but  also  by  the  convergent  testimony  of  Deu- 
teronomy. Last,  but  not  least,  we  have  postulated  no 
improbable  human  act  or  omission,  but  have  merely  sug- 
gested that  ancient  documents  have  been  subjected  to  the 
ordinary  vicissitudes  of  MS.  tradition. 

THE   MISSION  OF  THE  SPIES. 

Dr.  Gray's  summary  of  the  difficulties  will  in  this  instance 
be  given  because,  while  containing  everything  material,  it  is 
much  shorter  than  Mr.  Carpenter's : — 


Essays  in  Pcntateuchal  Criticism.  139 

"  Nothing  but  the  baldest  analysis  of  the  story  as  it  now  lies  before 
us  is  possible  without  recognising  the  numerous  incongruities  in  de- 
tail by  which  it  is  marked;  some  of  these  might  be  harmonised, 
others  are  hopelessly  irreconcilable.  The  point  of  departure  of  the 
spies  is  now  the  wilderness  of  Paran,  ver.  3.  26a,  now  Kadesh,  ver. 
26b;  the  country  reconnoitered  is  now  the  whole  land  of  Canaan, 
ver.  2.  17a,  from  the  extreme  south  to  the  extreme  north,  ver.  21, 
now  only  the  southern  district  round  Hebron,  ver.  22-24;  the  ma- 
jority of  the  spies  now  report  that  the  land  is  unfertile,  ver.  32,  now 
that  it  is  very  fertile,  but  invincible,  ver.  27-31.  33 ;  now  Caleb 
alone  dissents  from  the  majority,  ver.  30,  and  is  alone  exempted 
from  punishment,  xiv  24;  now  both  Joshua  and  Caleb  dissent,  xiv 
6f,  and  are  exempted,  xiv  38.  Even  when  the  details  of  the  narra- 
tive are  not  incongruous,  they  are  frequently  duplicated,  or  the  style 
is  markedly  redundant  (e.g.  xiii  17-20,  and  note  the  extent  to  which 
xiv  11-24  and  ver.  26-35  are  parallel  in  substance,")  (Numbers, 
p.  129.) 

The  first  of  these  discrepancies  is  purely  factitious.  The 
statement  in  the  text  is,  "And  they  went,  and  came  to  Moses, 
and  to  Aaron,  and  to  all  the  congregation  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  unto  the  wilderness  of  Paran,  to  Kadesh"  (Num.  xiii. 
26),  and  the  discrepancy  can  be  manufactured  only  by  tearing 
this  verse  asunder,  and  giving  "to  Kadesh"  (with  what  fol- 
lows) to  JE,  while  assigning  the  earlier  portion  of  the  verse  to 
P.  That  Kadesh  was  the  only  point  of  departure  recognized 
by  any  "  source  "  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  in  Numbers  xxxii., 
where  a  late  priestly  writer  refers  to  the  incident,  he  speaks 
of  Kadesh-barnea  as  the  starting-place  (ver.  8).  The  real  ques- 
tion is  as  to  the  precise  relations  of  Zin  and  Paran.  Two  the- 
ories have,  however,  been  put  forward,  either  of  which  would 
meet  the  exigencies  of  this  passage:  (1)  that  Zin  was  a  part 
of  Paran,  and  (2)  that  Paran  is  used  in  a  wider  and  a  nar- 
rower sense,  sometimes  including  Zin  and  sometimes  being 
applied  more  exactly  to  the  desert  south  of  Zin.  The  data  at 
our  disposal  are  insufficient  for  any  final  decision  between  these 
two  views.  It  should,  however,  be  noted  that  the  gravamen 
of  the  higher  critical  argument  lies  in  the  present  position  of 


140  Essays  in  Pcntatcuchal  Criticism. 

Numbers  xx.  1,  which  we  have  already  found  reason  to  re- 
gard as  misplaced.  Thus  Dr.  Gray  writes,  "  In  the  fortieth 
year  the  people  apparently  march  out  of  the  wilderness  of  Pa- 
ran  to  Kadesh."     (Numbers,  p.  91.) 

The  second  difficulty  is  more  serious.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  case 
that  Numbers  xiii.  21  in  the  present  text  represents  the  spies 
as  going  unto  Rehob  to  the  entering  in  of  Hamath.  Nothing 
is  known  of  this  Rehob :  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  identify 
it  with  the  Rehob  of  2  Samuel  x.  8;  but  (1)  this  was  a  Syr- 
ian town,  and  (2)  its  proper  name  seems  to  have  been  Beth- 
Rehob,  the  abbreviated  form  being  in  a  passage  where  the  full 
name  has  already  been  given.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  quite 
certain  that  "  the  entering  in  of  Hamath  "  is  in  the  north.  Ac- 
cording to  the  present  text,  therefore,  verses  21  ff.  represent 
the  spies  as  passing  through  the  extreme  north  of  the  land  on 
their  way  to  Hebron.  From  his  own  peculiar  point  of  view 
Dr.  Cheyne  argues  for  corruption  (Enc.  Rib.  402b)  ;  and,  so 
far  as  we  can  see,  there  is  no  logical  escape  from  some  such 
hypothesis  on  any  view.  According  to  the  documentary  the- 
ory, P  sends  the  spies  up  to  the  extreme  north;  but  this  loses 
sight  of  the  fact  that  in  Numbers  xxxii.  a  late  priestly  writer 
knows  nothing  of  this  extensive  exploration  and  fixes  on  Esh- 
col  as  the  limit  of  the  expedition  (ver.  9).  This  is  the  more 
remarkable  as,  from  other  features  of  that  chapter,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  this  writer  was  acquainted  with  our  present  narra- 
tive, in  what  Dr.  Gray  calls  "  its  present  composite  form  ( JE 
P)."  (Numbers,  p.  426.)  It  is  reasonably  clear,  therefore, 
that  this  writer  knew  of  nothing  in  the  present  narrative  that 
was  inconsistent  with  the  Eshcol  story.  Further,  it  may  be 
urged  that  any  editor  who  desired  to  combine  a  statement  that 
the  spies  went  to  Eshcol  with  one  that  they  went  further  north 
would  presumably  have  placed  our  present  verse  21  after,  and 


Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism.  141 

not  before,  the  visit  to  Eshcol,  i.e.  after  24 ;  for  he  must  have 
been  perfectly  familiar  with  the  positions  of  Hebron  and  the 
entering  in  of  Hamath.  Hence  we  may  reasonably  suppose 
that  the  difficulty  is  due  to  some  error  in  the  MS.  tradition. 
Unfortunately,  in  the  present  state  of  textual  criticism,  it  is 
impossible  to  suggest  the  remedy. 

There  is  extant  evidence  of  variations  in  the  text  which 
point  to  textual  criticism  as  the  means  of  finding  the  solution 
of  the  next  difficulty,  viz.  the  discrepancy  in  the  reports  of  the 
spies.  In  xiii.  30  the  vSeptuagint  text  of  Caleb's  speech  begins 
with  ovx^,  aWa  —  "  nay,  but,"  —  though  there  is  nothing  cor- 
responding to  these  words  in  the  Hebrew.  This  beginning  is 
comprehensible  only  on  the  supposition  that  something  is 
missing  before  verse  30  in  its  present  position,  and  we  have 
long  felt  that  the  words  "  and  Caleb  stilled  the  people  "  point 
in  the  same  direction.  Whether  or  not  verse  29  is  a  later  note 
which  has  crept  into  the  narrative,  it  seems  tolerably  clear  that 
the  text  is  not  in  order.  Either  something  has  been  lost  nar- 
rating the  lamentations  of  the  people  on  hearing  the  first  re- 
port of  the  spies,  or  else  some  transposition  has  taken  place. 
In  the  latter  case  the  difficulty  might  be  met  by  removing 
either  xiii.  30-32  or  more  probably  xiii.  30-xiv.  lb  ("voice") 
to  a  position  after  xiv.  4.  Curiously  enough  Dr.  Gray  sug- 
gests that  xiii.  30  should  perhaps  come  here,  and  Mr.  Carpen- 
ter has  a  very  similar  theory.  Had  they  not  been  under  the 
influence  of  the  divisive  hypothesis,  they  would  probably 
have  reflected  that  there  was  here  a  case  for  textual  criticism 
which  must  make  it  impossible  to  dogmatize  about  the  con- 
tents of  the  original  narrative.  Transpositions  of  this  kind 
appear  to  point  to  the  piecing  together  of  a  MS.  that  had  been 
considerably  torn.  With  regard  to  the  double  report  as  to  the 
land,  it  must  be  noticed  that  the  critical  analysis  altogether 


142  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

fails  to  eliminate  this  feature.  The  only  difference  is  that  the 
text  which  presents  two  conflicting  accounts  is  now  assigned 
to  P  instead  of  to  Moses.  For  Numbers  xiii.  32  gives  an  evil 
report,  and  Numbers  xiv.  7  makes  Canaan  "  an  exceeding  good 
land."  If  we  turn  from  the  condition  of  the  text  to  the  con- 
sideration of  what  actually  happened,  the  outlines  appear  to  be 
reasonably  clear.  There  was  first  a  favorable  report,  tempered 
by  remarks  on  the  strength  of  the  inhabitants.  That  resulted 
in  a  panic,  under  the  influence  of  which  the  majority  of  the 
spies  shifted  round  and  abused  the  land,  while  Caleb,  sup- 
ported by  Joshua,  stood  to  the  original  facts  and  urged  the 
people  to  have  courage. 

The  last  supposed  discrepancy  —  that  Caleb  in  one  account 
alone  dissents  from  the  majority,  and  is  alone  exempted  from 
punishment  —  is  one  of  those  extraordinary  arguments  which 
it  is  difficult  to  take  seriously.  Hebrew  tradition  is  absolutely 
consistent  in  representing  Joshua  as  having  been  the  leader 
under  whom  the  Israelites  entered  Canaan.  That  being  so,  it 
must  have  conceived  him  as  being  alive  at  the  time.  But,  ac- 
cording to  the  critical  theory,  in  the  JE  story  Caleb  alone  of 
the  men  of  that  generation  was  to  live  —  and  that  though  E  is 
supposed  to  have  a  special  interest  in  Joshua.  This  is  but  one 
more  instance  of  the  fatal  lack  of  sympathy  with  the  narra- 
tor's methods  of  expression.  For  the  rest  it  is  sufficiently 
clear  that  at  first  Caleb  took  the  lead  and  overshadowed 
Joshua. 

It  may  be  worth  while  in  this  connection  to  deal  with  an- 
other little  higher  critical  argument.  On  xiii.  6,  "  of  the  tribe 
of  Judah,  Caleb,"  Dr.  Gray  writes  (Numbers,  p.  136)  :  "Ac- 
cording to  another  and  earlier  tradition,  Caleb  was  a  Keniz- 
zite,  xxxii  12  Jos.  xiv  6,  14."  Now  xxxii.  is  alleged  to  be  the 
work  of  a  late  priestly  writer,  so  that  the  reference  to  this  as 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  143 

embodying  an  earlier  tradition  calls  for  inquiry.  On  the  verse 
in  question  Dr.  Gray  says  (p.  430),  "  In  P  Caleb  is  a  Judah- 
ite."  Apparently  therefore  Ps  does  not  agree  with  "  P."  But 
if  we  turn  to  the  two  passages  in  Joshua  we  get  an  expla- 
nation of  the  phenomenon :  "  Then  the  children  of  Judah  drew 
nigh  imto  Joshua  in  Gilgal ;  and  Caleb  the  son  of  Jephunneh 
the  Kenizzite  said  unto  him,"  etc.  That  is  to  say,  even  the 
"  earlier  tradition  "  treats  Caleb  the  Kenizzite  as  having  been 
so  incorporated  with  the  children  of  Judah  as  to  be  for  all 
practical  purposes  a  constituent  member  of  the  tribe;  and 
there  is  no  passage  in  P  that  in  any  way  conflicts  with  this. 
We  have  no  means  of  telling  how  or  when  this  incorporation 
had  been  effected :  but  the  fact  itself  is  not  open  to  doubt,  and 
its  recognition  makes  it  impossible  to  manufacture  any  dis- 
crepancy between  the  relevant  passages. 

With  regard  to  the  redundant  style  and  the  duplications  of 
detail,  this  may  be  due  in  part  to  the  condition  of  the  text,  but 
in  part  it  is  merely  another  way  of  saying  that,  had  Dr.  Gray 
been  the  narrator,  he  would  have  told  the  story  differently. 
This  opinion  we  are  not  concerned  to  discuss. 

KORAH,  DATHAN,  AND  ABIRAM. 

The  next  chapter  that  gives  trouble  is  Numbers  xvi.  But 
here  variants  have  been  preserved  by  the  Septuagint  which 
show  very  clearly  that  we  have  to  deal  with  nothing  more 
serious  than  some  slight  textual  corruptions  which  have  been 
made  the  foundation  for  one  of  those  extraordinary  theories 
which  only  higher  critics  can  be  expected  to  believe.  We  have 
dealt  with  these  matters  at  some  length  elsewhere,^  and  no 
answer  has  been  put  forward  to  our  arguments.  We  there- 
fore do  not  propose  to  treat  of  this  chapter  in  much  detail  here. 
'See  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  pp.  35-39. 


144  Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 

Dr.  Gray  (p.  187)  appears  impressed  by  the  fact  that  Deuter- 
onomy xi.  6  only  mentions  Dathan  and  Abiram ;  but  this  is 
due  partly  to  the  purpose  of  the  book,  which,  being  intended 
for  public  reading,  deals  only  with  that  section  of  the  episode 
which  is  germane  to  its  purpose,  and  partly  to  a  fact  that  will 
presently  emerge.  To  say,  as  Dr.  Gray  does,  that  Numbers 
xxvii.  3  refers  only  to  Korah  is  to  misread  the  fact  that  the 
context  recognizes  non-Levites  as  having  been  associated  with 
him.  It  is  true  that  Dr.  Gray  arbitrarily  cuts  out  "  ye  take  too 
much  upon  you,  ye  sons  of  Levi,"  in  xvi.,  in  order  to  obtain  a 
revolt  of  a  non-Levitical  Korah;  but  his  vivisection  of  this 
chapter  is  due  to  incompetence  to  appreciate  marks  of  artistic 
unity.  No  true  literary  critic  could  possibly  overlook  or  miss 
the  force  of  the  repeated  "  ye  take  too  much  upon  you  "  in 
verses  3  and  7,  and  the  repeated  "  Is  it  a  small  thing  "  in  verses 
9  and  13. 

The  truth  is  that  verses  24  and  27,  and  possibly  one  or  two 
other  verses,  have  suffered  in  transmission.  The  Hebrew 
"  Dwelling "  is  elsewhere  in  the  Pentateuch  applied  to  the 
Tabernacle  or  a  portion  of  it,  but  not  (in  the  singular)  to  a 
human  habitation,  and  the  phrase  "  Dwelling  of  Korah, 
Dathan,  and  Abiram"  is  impossible  for  other  reasons.  (See 
Gray,  p.  204.)  This  has  been  recognized  by  the  higher  critics, 
who  therefore  do  not  keep  the  Hebrew  text.  Unhappily  they 
quite  characteristically  ignore  the  evidence  of  the  Septuagint 
which  does  not  help  them.  But  those  who  are  capable  of 
weighing  evidence  will  prefer  (when  once  they  admit  that  the 
Hebrew  text  is  wrong)  to  seek  a  reading  that  has  some  MS. 
authority,  rather  than  to  embark  on  biased  speculations.  In 
verse  24  the  Septuagint  has  "  the  company  "  for  "  the  Dwel- 
ling," and  two  of  the  best  codices  omit  "  Dathan  and  Abiram." 
This  gives  us  "  speak  unto  the  congregation,  saying,  Get  you 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.     ,  145 

up  from  about  the  company  of  Korah.  And  Moses  rose  up 
and  went  unto  Dathan  and  Abiram."  In  verse  27  the  same 
two  MSS.  again  omit  "  Dathan  and  Abiram,"  and  the  Am- 
brosian  has  "  Korah's  company."  This  half  verse  should  fol- 
low 24  immediately.  Then  we  have :  "  So  they  gat  them  up 
from  the  company  of  Korah  on  every  side  "  as  the  sequel  of 
our  amended  24,  and  the  rest  of  the  chapter  is  really  quite 
smooth  so  far  as  the  higher  critical  difficulties  are  concerned. 
But  if  the  text  of  Numbers  xxvi.  10  is  sound,  one  difficulty 
remains.  Korah  is  there  said  to  have  been  swallowed  up  with 
Dathan  and  Abiram.  This  time,  however,  the  Samaritan 
comes  to  the  rescue  with  the  following  text:  "And  the  earth 
opened  her  mouth  and  the  earth  swallowed  them  up  when  the 
company  died,  what  time  the  fire  consumed  Korah  and  two 
hundred  and  fifty  men."  Whether,  the  phrase  "  the  earth  " 
is  original  in  the  second  place  where  it  occurs  may  be  doubted ; 
but  the  statement  that  the  fire  devoured  not  merely  the  two 
hundred  and  fifty,  but  also  Korah,  removes  all  the  difficulties. 
Dathan  and  Abiram  with  their  families  and  tents,  and  Korah's 
human  and  other  chattels  were  swallowed  by  the  earthquake 
which  destroyed  portions  of  the  camp,  but  Korah  himself  was 
near  the  Tabernacle  with  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  and  was 
consumed  by  fire  from  heaven.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the 
diflference  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Samaritan,  if  once  the 
second  "  the  earth  "  be  expelled  from  the  latter,  is  very  slight. 
The  latter  has  in  its  favor  the  fact  that  it  might  more  easily 
have  given  rise  to  the  corruption  than  the  former.  In  a  text 
presenting  ntsimpnx  the  copyist's  eye  could  easily  slip 
from  the  first  nK  to  the  second.  The  omitted  phrase  being 
inserted  in  the  margin  perhaps  in  the  form  n"ipn5<i  would 
be  likely  to  lose  its  proper  position.  This  gives  an  additional 
reason  for  the  non-mention  of  Korah  in  Deuteronomy  and  the 


146  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

non-mention  of  Dathan  and  Abiram  in  Numbers  xxvii.,  since 
they  were  not  involved  in  a  common  fate.  It  will  therefore  be 
seen  that  the  correction  of  the  text  in  the  light  of  the  ancient 
evidence  removes  all  difficulties,  and  involves  none  of  the  ab- 
surdities that  are  inevitable  in  a  scheme  which  postulates  a 
fatuous  redactor  who  composed  an  aimless  and  unintelligible 
mosaic  out  of  two  unrelated  stories. 

THE  BALAAM    NARRATIVE. 

The  attitude  of  the  critics  to  the  Balaam  narrative  is  some- 
what strange,  for  Dr.  Gray  first  enumerates  four  points  that  in 
his  opinion  evidence  compilation,  and  then  practically  shows 
that  he  does  not  take  the  first  three  at  all  seriously  (Numbers, 
p.  309).  Two  of  the  three  are  certainly  trifling.  The  third  is 
made  by  insisting  that  Balaam's  home  in  Numbers  xxii.  5  is 
by  the  Euphrates,  and  then  altering  "  the  land  of  the  children 
of  his  people  "  to  "  the  land  of  the  children  of  Ammon,"  with 
some  MSS.,  the  Samaritan  and  some  of  the  Versions.  This 
gives  an  inconsistency  between  the  land  of  Ammon  and  Pitru 
on  the  Euphrates:  but  as  Balaam  really  came  from  Pethor 
(not  Pitru)  in  Aram-naharaim  (not  Mesopotamia),^  on  a  river 
which  was  not  the  Euphrates,  from  the  land  of  "  the  child- 
ren of  his  people"  (not  "of  Ammon"),  it  will  be  admitted 
that  there  is  some  ground  for  Dr.  Gray's  distrust  of  the  point. 
It  is  of  course  quite  possible  that  "  the  children  of  his  people  " 
is  really  a  corrupt  phrase  under  which  the  true  reading  lies 
concealed;  but  "Ammon"  is  a  little  too  easy  and  obvious  to 
be  probable. 

The  real  difficulty  in  Dr.  Gray's  words 

"  consists  mainly  in  the  fact  that  in  ver.  20f,  Balaam,  having  re- 
ceived God's  permission  to  go,  is  on  his  way  accompanied  hy  the 

^  See  supra,  p.  3  30. 


Essays  in  Pentatcuchal  Criticism.  147 

princes  of  Balak,  whereas  in  ver.  22  Balaam  is  on  his  way  accom- 
panied hy  two  servants  and  without  having  received  the  Loed's  per- 
mission: for  that  is  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  Lord*s  anger  "  (Num- 
bers, p.  309). 

We  admit  that  there  is  a  difficulty,  but  in  the  absence  of  any 
clue  from  the  Versions  we  could  only  hazard  guesses  as  to  the 
true  solution ;  and  this  we  are  unwilling  to  do  for  fear  of  ob- 
scuring the  really  strong  points  of  our  case. 

THE  OTHER  ALLEGED  DISCREPANCIES   IN   NARRATIVE  BETWEEN 
DEUTERONOMY  AND   EXODUS-NUMBERS. 

On  pages  xxxv  to  xxxvii  of  his  "  Deuteronomy,"  Dr. 
Driver  deals  with  these,  which  he  sets  out  in  nine  numbered 
sections.  Two  of  the  discrepancies  depend  on  the  genuineness 
of  Deuteronomy  x.  6  f.  Dr.  Driver  himself  does  not  believe 
these  verses  to  be  an  integral  part  of  the  book,  nor  do  we.  The 
order  of  the  stations  does  not  agree  with  the  itinerary  in 
Numbers  xxxiii.,  the  death  of  Aaron  is  here  said  to  have  taken 
place  at  Moserah,  and  these  verses  make  the  chronology  of  the 
separation  of  Levi  (x.  8  f.)  extremely  difficult.  It  is  true  that 
the  phrase  "  at  that  time  "  is  not  to  be  pressed  too  far :  yet  in 
this  context  it  would  have  to  be  stretched  out  of  recognition 
to  harmonize  with  Numbers.  It  is  of  course  possible  that 
Moserah  was  at  or  near  Mount  Hon  and  the  stations  in 
Numbers  xxxiii.  may  have  experienced  considerable  derange- 
ment in  transmission.  Nevertheless  our  present  knowledge  is 
not  such  as  to  justify  us  in  preferring  the  data  of  a  fragmen- 
tary note  of  this  description  which  is  admittedly  out  of  place 
to  even  the  present  order  of  the  stations  in  Numbers  xxxiii. 
As  a  pure  question  of  textual  criticism,  the  reasons  stated  by 
Dr.  Driver  (p.  118)  are  in  our  judgment  conclusive  against 
the  present  position  of  the  fragment,  and,  that  being  so,  he  is 
undoubtedly  right  in  refusing  to  use  the  difficulties  it  presents 


148  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

to  support  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  documentary  theory. 

The  other  difficulties  are  arranged  by  Dr.  Driver  in  three 
groups.  The  first  consists  of  two  points  which  he  himself 
does  not  take  seriously.  These  we  need  not  stay  to  discuss. 
The  second  comprises  two  inconsistencies,  which  "  awaken 
graver  doubts."  The  remaining  three  perplexities  "  cannot 
be  fairly  explained  upon  the  hypothesis  of  Mosaic  author- 
ship." But  of  these  three,  two  —  the  date  of  the  smiting  of 
the  rock  at  Meriboth-Kadesh  and  the  discrepancy  as  to  the  al- 
leged thirty-eight  years'  sojourn  at  Kadesh  —  have  already 
been  solved  by  our  rearrangement  of  the  text  of  Numbers. 
Hence  we  have  only  three  cases  left  to  consider,  of  which  one 
only  is,  in  Dr.  Driver's  opinion,  incompatible  with  Mosaic 
authorship.  We  take  these  three  difficulties  in  the  order 
adopted  by  Dr.  Driver  (following  the  text  of  Deuteronomy). 
This  leaves  the  most  serious  to  the  last. 

The  first  is  stated  as  follows : — 

"  [Dt]  ix  9.  According  to  Ex.  xxxii-xxxiv  Moses  was  three  times 
in  the  mount  (xxxii  Iff. ;  xxxii  31 ;  xxxiv  4)  ;  but  it  is  only  on  the 
third  occasion  that  he  is  recorded  to  have  fasted  (xxxiv  28)  :  Dt, 
in  the  very  words  of  Ex.,  describes  him  as  doing  so  on  the  -first  oc- 
casion. Obviously,  Dt.  may  relate  what  is  passed  by  in  silence  in 
Ex.;  but  the  variation  is  remarkable."    (Deuteronomy,  p.  xxxvi.) 

Clearly  the  first  thing  is  to  consider  whether  or  not  we  are  to 
believe  that  Moses  fasted  on  the  occasion  of  his  first  visit  to 
the  Mount.  We  do  not  suppose  it  will  be  seriously  suggested 
that  any  canonical  writer  or  source  believed  that  he  partook  of 
food  during  the  time  that  he  was  communing  with  God.  If 
that  be  so,  we  are  face  to  face  with  a  simple  argument  from 
silence  —  never  a  very  formidable  weapon  —  and  not  with  any 
difference  of  tradition.  But  if  we  further  look  at  Exodus  to 
see  how  the  narrative  is  constructed,  we  find  that  the  visit  to 
the  Mount  came  to  an  abrupt  end  owing  to  the  episode  of  the 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  149 

golden  calf.  At  the  point  where,  but  for  that  episode,  we 
might  have  had  a  calm  statement  of  the  conclusion  of  the  visit, 
the  relation  of  the  sin  of  the  people  is  followed  by  a  command 
to  leave  the  Mount.  The  insertion  of  a  statement  that  Moses 
fasted  would  have  been  utterly  out  of  place  in  that  narrative. 
Points  like  this  are  not  perhaps  very  easy  to  demonstrate,  but 
we  would  ask  anybody  who  feels'  doubts  on  the  subject  to  read 
the  narrative  of  Exodus  xxxii.  and  consider  what  would  be 
the  effect  of  interposing  a  statement  that  Moses  fasted,  at  any 
point  he  may  choose  for  the  experiment.  He  will  find  that 
course  more  convincing  than  pages  of  argument. 
The  next  argument  is  as  follows : — 

'•  [Dt.]  ix  25-29.  This,  it  is  plain,  must  refer  either  to  Ex.  xxxii 
31f.  (Moses'  second  visit  to  the  mountain),  or  (more  probably)  to 
Ex.  xxxiv  9.  28  (his  third  visit  to  it).  It  is  singular,  now,  that  the 
terms  of  Moses'  own  intercession,  as  here  reproduced,  are  borrowed, 
not  from  either  of  these  passages,  but  from  xxxii  11-13,  at  the  close 
of  his  -first  forty  days  upon  the  mountain."  (Deuteronomy,  p. 
xxxvi. ) 

We  are  here  rather  embarrassed  by  the  number  of  available 
rephes.  First,  we  have  seen  so  many  instances  of  displace- 
ment that  it  would  put  no  great  strain  on  our  credulity  to 
suppose  that  verses  26-29  ought  to  stand  after  verse  14.  It  is 
true  that  in  the  Revised  Version  verse  15  reads  "  so  I  turned," 
but  the  Hebrew  is  "  and  I  turned,"  and  does  not  neces- 
sarily convey  the  same  idea  as  the  English.  It  is  possible  that 
this  transposition  is  correct :  but  we  are  bound  to  say  that  we 
do  not  think  it  at  all  necessary.  Two  reasons  weigh  with  us. 
First,  we  can  see  no  improbability  in  supposing  that  an  old 
man  speaking  of  events  that  had  taken  place  nearly  forty 
years  before  might  inadvertently  misplace  them  even  if  he  de- 
sired to  adhere  to  chronology.  We  do  not  picture  Moses  as 
a  sort  of  modern  professor  carefully  looking  up  his  references 


150  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

and  endeavoring  to  copy  his  sources  with  scrupulous  accuracy. 
And  the  second  is,  that  the  context  proves  beyond  a  perad- 
venture  that  chronology  in  the  present  passage  is  deliberately 
sacrificed  to  rhetorical  effect.  We  cannot  illustrate  this  better, 
than  by  setting  out  in  tabular  form  the  arrangement  of  the 
narrative,  on  the  view  that  Dr.  Driver  regards  as  more  prob- 
able. 

Deut.  ix  15-16    Moses   descends   from  the  mountain  after  his  first 
visit  and  sees  that  a  calf  has  been  made. 
17  He  breaks  the  tables. 

18-20    Third  visit  to  the  mountain. 

21  Destruction  of  the  golden  calf. 

22  Reference  to  Taberah,  Massah,  and  Kibroth-hattaa- 
vah. 

23  The  rebellion  at  Kadesh-barnea. 

24  "Ye  have  been  rebellious  from  the  day  that  I  knew 

you." 

25  Resumption  of  the  narrative  of  the  third  visit. 
26-29    Terms  of  the  prayer  uttered  during  the  first  visit. 

X   1  Command  to  hew  the  new  tables?  and  come  up  to  the 

mount  for  the  third  visit. 
3  Ascent  for  the  third  visit. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  on  any  view  of  the  authorship  of 
these  chapters  the  chronological  theory  cannot  be  sustained. 
The  prayer  in  ix.  26-29  is  not  the  prayer  uttered  during  the 
third  visit,  nor  can  its  position  in  so  thoroughly  non-chronolo- 
gical an  arrangement  of  facts  be  regarded  as  evidence  that  in 
the  writer's  view  it  was  offered  up  on  this  occasion.  Is  it 
then  possible  to  assign  any  reason  for  the  order?  We  think 
so.    On  verse  25  Dr.  Driver  notes  that : — 

"  The  Writer  reverts  here  to  the  occasion  mentioned  verse  18,  for 
the  purpose  of  emphasizing  (in  accordance  with  the  general  design 
of  the  retrospect)  the  indebtedness  of  Israel  to  Moses'  intercession." 
(Op.  cit.,  p.  116.) 

Now  in  connection  with  the  episode  of  the  golden  calf,  this 
intercession  took  two  forms,  fasting  and  prayer.   The  former 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  151 

is  mentioned  first, —  probably  because  it  would  be  likely  to 
impress  the  people  more.  But  if  the  full  extent  of  that  inter- 
cession was  to  be  made  clear  it  was  necessary  also  to  insert  a 
prayer.  For  reasons  which  will  be  readily  understood,  it  was 
impossible  to  repeat  Exodus  xxxii.  31.  No  man  who  could 
utter  the  words,  "  and  if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy 
book  which  thou  hast  written,"  could  be  expected  to  repeat 
them  for  rhetorical  purposes  in  a  speech  to  the  people.  The 
single  sentence  which  contains  the  only  reported  prayer  ut- 
tered by  Moses  on  the  third  visit  is  equally  unsuited  for  the 
speaker's  purpose,  though  for  different  reasons.  It  begins 
with  the  words,  "If  now  I  have  found  grace  in  thy  sight " — 
hardly  the  best  way  of  bringing  home  to  the  people  the  extent 
of  their  iniquity  —  and  is  directed  to  the  petition  that  God 
would  go  up  with  them  Himself  instead  of  sending  an  angel. 
It  does  not  even  contemplate  the  danger  which  had  once  been 
imminent,  and  which  the  Deuteronomist  here  desires  to  empha- 
size, viz.  that  God  might  utterly  destroy  them.  The  point  of 
the  whole  passage,  in  so  far  as  it  turns  on  the  intercession  of 
Moses,  is  that,  but  for  his  action,  God  would  have  destroyed 
the  people :  "  Let  me  alone,  that  I  may  destroy  them,  and  blot 
out  their  name  from  under  heaven"  (ver.  14).  Hence  the 
first  prayer  was  the  only  one  which  it  was  possible  to  quote; 
and  the  difficulty  results,  not  from  the  quotation,  but  from  the 
failure  to  realize  that  the  arrangement  is  not  meant  to  be 
chronological.  This  failure  is  the  more  curious  because  of 
Dr.  Driver's  treatment  of  verses  18-20. 

On  the  occasion  of  Moses'  first  visit  to  the  mount  the  Israel- 
ites made  a  golden  calf.  Moses  in  Exodus  destroyed  the  calf 
(Ex.  xxxii.  20),  and  subsequently  revisited  the  mount.  But 
in  Deuteronomy  we  are  told  (ix.  18-20)  :  "  I  fell  down  before 
the  Lord  as  at  the  first,  forty  days  and  forty  nights,"    and  it 


152  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

is  only  afterwards  that  Moses  narrates  (ver.  21)  how  he  des- 
troyed the  calf.  And  Dr.  Driver,  instead  of  saying  that,  as 
this  is  in  conflict  with  chronology,  it  disagrees  with  Exodus, 
writes  approvingly :  "  No  doubt  this  intercession  is  men- 
tioned here,  in  anticipation  of  its  true  chronological  position, 
on  account  of  its  significance  in  the  argument."  (Deuterono- 
my, p.  115.) 

No  doubt  it  is ;  but,  if  chronology  may  be  set  aside  when 
it  suits  the  orator  in  verses  18-20,  why  must  it  override  all 
other  considerations  in  verses  26-29? 

The  last  point  —  which  it  must  be  remembered  is  one  of  the 
three  that  Dr.  Driver  regards  as  fatal  —  is  also  chronolog- 
ical : — 

"[Dt]  X  1-^.  This  passage  agrees  —  to  a  large  extent  verbally  — 
with  Ex.  xxxiv  1-4,  28,  with  the  difference  that  in  Dt.  Moses  is  di- 
rected to  make,  and  actually  does  make,  an  ark  of  acacia-wood 
before  ascending  the  mount  the  third  time,  to  receive  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments. That  Moses  should  describe  as  made  by  himself  what 
was  in  fact  made  by  Bezal'el,  acting  on  his  behalf,  is,  no  doubt,  nat- 
ural enough;  but  in  the  narrative  of  Ex.  (as  it  now  stands)  the 
command  is  both  given  to  Bezal'el,  and  executed  by  him,  after 
Moses'  return  from  the  mountain  (xxxvi  2  f .  xxxvii  1).  The  dis- 
crepancy in  two  narratives,  so  circumstantial  as  each  of  these  is,  is 
difficult  to  explain,  if  both  are  the  work  of  one  and  the  same  writer, 
describing  incidents  in  which  he  was  personally  concerned."  (Deu- 
teronomy, p.  xxxvi.) 

If  such  a  discrepancy  occurred  in  the  work  of  a  modern 
statesman,  nobody  who  knew  anything  about  the  fallibility  of 
human  testimony  would  feel  surprised:  but  the  astonishing 
accuracy  of  the  statements  in  Deuteronom)^  lends  weight  to 
the  objection.  It  is  true  that  the  order  is  partly  rhetorical,  not 
chronological:  but  it  seems  clear  that  the  recollection  of 
Moses  pointed  to  the  making  of  the  ark  as  having  been  put  in 
hand  before  the  ascent.     But  it  happens  that  there  are  other 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  153 

grounds  for  supposing  that  there  is  something  wrong  with 
the  text  of  Exodus  xxxv.-xl.  By  way  of  putting  forward 
the  most  extreme  critical  view,  the  following  is  quoted  from 
the  late  Dr.  William  Robertson  Smith: — 

"A  remarkable  case  of  variations  between  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Greek  is  found,  where  we  should  least  expect  it,  within  the  Penta- 
teuch itself.  The  translation  of  the  Law  is  the  oldest  part  of  the 
Septuagint,  and  in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  was  much  the  most  import- 
ant. And  as  a  rule  the  variations  are  here  confined  within  narrow 
limits,  the  text  being  already  better  fixed  than  in  the  historical 
books.  But  there  is  one  considerable  section,  Exod.  xxxv.-xl.,  where 
extraordinary  variations  appear  in  the  Greek,  some  verses  being 
omitted  altogether,  while  others  are  transposed  and  knocked  about 
with  a  freedom  very  unlike  the  usual  manner  of  the  translators  of 
the  Pentateuch.  The  details  of  the  variations  need  not  be  recounted 
here;  they  are  fully  exhibited  in  tabular  form  in  Kuenen's  Onder- 
zoeh,  2d  ed.,  vol.  i.  p.  77,  and  in  Driver's  Introduction,  p.  37  sq.  The 
variations  prove  either  that  the  text  of  this  section  of  the  Pentateuch 
was  not  yet  fixed  in  the  third  century  before  Christ,  or  that  the 
translator  did  not  feel  himself  bound  to  treat  it  with  the  same  rev- 
erence as  the  rest  of  the  Law.  But  indeed  there  are  strong  reasons 
for  suspecting  that  the  Greek  version  of  these  chapters  is  not  by  the 
same  hand  as  the  rest  of  the  Book  of  Exodus,  various  Hebrew  words 
being  represented  by  other  Greek  equivalents  than  those  used  in  the 
earlier  chapters.  And  thus  it  seems  possible  that  this  whole  sec- 
tion was  lacking  in  the  copy  that  lay  before  the  first  translator  of 
the  Law.  It  is  true  that  the  chapters  are  not  very  essential,  since 
they  simply  describe,  almost  in  the  same  words,  the  execution  of  the 
directions  about  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture  already  given  in 
chaps,  xxv.-xxxi.  Most  modern  critics  hold  chaps,  xxxv.-xl,  for  a 
late  addition  to  the  text,  and  see  in  the  variations  between  the  He- 
brew and  the  Greek  proof  that  the  form  of  the  addition  underwent 
changes,  and  was  not  finally  fixed  in  all  copies  when  the  Septuagint 
version  was  made.  In  favour  of  this  view  several  considerations 
may  be  adduced  which  it  would  carry  us  too  far  to  consider  here. 
But  in  any  case  those  who  hold  that  the  whole  Pentateuch  dates 
from  the  time  of  Moses,  and  that  the  Septuagint  translators  had  to 
deal  with  a  text  that  had  been  fixed  and  sacred  for  a  thousand 
years,  have  a  hard  nut  to  crack  in  the  wholly  exceptional  freedom 
with  which  the  Greek  version  treats  this  part  of  the  sacrosanct 
Torah."  (Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  2d  ed.,  pp.  124  f.) 

Dr.  Smith  quite  characteristically  forgets  that  the  Samari- 
tan   Pentateuch    which,    according  to  his  view  on  page  61  of 


154  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

this  same  work,  dates  from  about  430  b.  c,  here  supports  the 
Hebrew,  and  proves  that  the  chapters  in  question  are  at  least 
considerably  older  than  the  Septuagint :  ^  but  the  variations 
undoubtedly  call  for  some  explanation.  Unfortunately  the 
available  data  are  quite  inadequate  for  the  purpose.  They  cer- 
tainly point  to  editorial  arrangements  of  these  chapters,  per- 
haps to  expansions.  We  shall  have  to  glance  at  some  further 
evidence  of  the  state  of  the  text,  when  we  deal  with  the  num- 
bers.^ 

For  the  present  we  can  only  say  that  in  our  judgment  no 
variation  they  may  exhibit  from  the  statements  of  Deuterono- 
my can  be  held  to  tell  against  the  latter  book  until  more  is 
known  of  the  method  in  which  the  existing  text  was  formed. 
Rather  we  should  hold  that  the  Deuteronomic  account  supplies 
additional  evidence  of  editorial  activity  in  the  chapters  in 
question. 

^  Similarly  he  writes  (p.  375)  :  "  It  is  disputed  whether,  in  Exod. 
XXX.  16,  *  the  service  of  the  tabernacle,'  defrayed  by  the  fixed  tribute 
of  half  a  shekel,  refers  to  the  continual  sacrifices.  If  it  does  so, 
this  law  was  still  unknown  to  Nehemiah,  and  must  be  a  late  addi- 
tion to  the  Pentateuch."  The  "late  addition"  is  found  in  the  Sa- 
maritan, which  therefore  proves  that  the  law  is  not  subsequent  to 
Nehemiah. 

^  See  infra,  pp.  163-164. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  NUMBERS  OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 

We  now  have  to  consider  matters  which  have  caused  grave 
embarrassment  to  successive  generations  of  interpreters.  Dr. 
Gray's  statement  is  as  follows: — 

"  It  will  be  convenient  to  gather  together  here  and  to  consider  once 
for  all  the  numbers  yielded  by  the  two  censuses  recorded  in  Numbers 
(chaps,  i-iv,  xxvi).  The  details  given  are  the  numbers  (1)  of  male 
Israelites  over  twenty  years  belonging  to  each  of  the  twelve  secular 
tribes:  (a)  in  the  second  year  of  the  Exodus,  chap,  if.;  (6)  in  the 
fortieth  year,  chap,  xxvi ;  (2)  of  firstborn  male  Israelites  above  a 
month  old,  iii  43;  (3)  of  males  above  a  month  old  belonging  to  the 
three  Levitical  families;  (a)  in  the  second  year,  chap,  iii;  (ft)  in  the 
fortieth,  chap,  xxvi;  (4)  of  male  Levites  between  thirty  and  fifty 
years  of  age,  chap.  iv. 

"  1.  The  tribes  in  the  table  below  are  arranged  according  to  their 
size  at  the  first  census;  the  order  in  the  text  of  chap,  i  (in  chap, 
xxvi  it  is  the  same,  except  that  Manasseh  precedes  Ephraim)  is  in- 
dicated by  the  bracketed  number  to  the  left;  the  sign  +  or  —  to  the 
right  indicates  that  the  tribe  is  represented  as  having  increased  or 
diminished  in  the  interval  between  the  two  censuses,  and  the  brack- 
eted figure  to  the  right  indicates  the  order  of  size  in  chap.  xxvi. 

Chap.  1,  year  2.  Chap,  xxvi,  year  40. 

(  4)  Judah 74,600  76,500  +  (  1) 

(10)  Dan    62,700  64,400+  (2) 

(  2)  Simeon    59,300  22,200   -  (12) 

(  6)  Zebulun    57,400  60,500  +  (  4) 

(  5)  Issachar    54,400  64,300  +  (  3) 

(12)  Naphtali    53,400  45,400   -  (  8) 

(  1)  Reuben    46,500  43,730   -  (  9) 

155 


156  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Chap,  i,  year  2.  Chap,  xxvi,  year  40. 

(  3)  Gad    45,650  40,500   -      (10) 

(11)   Asher    41,500  53,400+     (5) 

(  7)   Ephraim 40,500  32,500   -      (11) 

(  9)   Benjamin 35,400  45,600  +     (  7) 

(  8)   Manasseh    32,200  52,700  +     (  6) 

Totals 603,550    601,730 

"2.  The  firstborn  male  Israelites  above  a  month  old  number 
22,273. 

"  3.    The  numbers  of  male  Levites  are : — 

Above  1  month  old.  Between  30  and  50  years. 

Kohath    8600  2750 

Gershom    7500  2630 

Merari    6200  3200 

Total 22,000  ( in  text)  8580 

22,300  (actual) 
*'At  the  second  census  (xxvi  62)  23,000. 

"  These  numbers  must  on  every  ground  be  regarded  as  entirely  un- 
hlstorical  and  unreal;  for  (1)  they  are  impossible;  (2)  treated  as 
real,  and  compared  with  one  another,  they  yield  absurd  results ;  and 
(3)  they  are  inconsistent  with  numbers  given  in  earlier  Hebrew  lit- 
erature. 

"  1.  The  total  represented  is  impossible.  Males  over  twenty  form 
but  very  little  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  whole  population,  thus  (neg- 
lecting the  51,000  odd  Levites)  the  total  in  chap.  if.  (603,550)  rep- 
resents a  total  of  men,  women,  and  children  well  exceeding  2,000,000. 
And  yet  this  multitude  is  represented  as  spending  forty  years  in  the 
wilderness!  The  impossibility  cannot  be  avoided  by  the  assumption 
that  the  two  millions  wandered  far  and  wude;  for  (1)  this  is  not 
the  representation  of  the  text,  according  to  which,  for  example,  they 
camped  in  a  fixed  order  (chap,  ii),  and  marched  together  at  a  signal 
given  by  two  trumpets  (chap,  x)  ;  and  (2)  the  numbers  are  impossi- 
ble even  if  we  think  of  them  as  dispersed  over  the  w^hole  peninsula 
of  Sinai,  the  present  population  of  which  is  estimated  at  from  4000 
to  6000. 

"*As  we  saw  the  peninsula,'  writes  Robinson  (BihL  Researches, 
i.  106),  *a  body  of  two  millions  of  men  could  not  subsist  there  a 
week  without  drawing  their  supplies  of  water,  as  well  as  of  provis- 
ions, from  a  great  distance.'  By  a  miracle,  no  doubt,  this  multitude 
might  have  been  sustained ;  but  it  ought  to  be  observed  that  the  mir- 
acles actually  recorded  are  not  on  an  adequate  scale;  for  let  any 
one  read  the  story  in  xx  1-13,  and  ask  himself  whether  this  suggests 
a  w^ater  supply  suflEicient  for  a  multitude  equal  to  the  combined  pop- 
ulations of  Glasgow,  Liverpool,  and  Birmingham.     It  must  suffice  to 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  157 

bring  this  number  once  more  to  the  touchstone  of  reality.  The  num- 
ber at  the  end  of  the  wilderness  period  is  virtually  the  same  as  at 
the  beginning,  i.e.  we  are  to  think  of  two  million  people  ready  to  fall 
on  and  settle  in  Canaan,  already  long  inhabited.  Now,  what  data  ex- 
ist point  to  about  one  million  as  the  outside  population  of  Israel  and 
Judah  when  settled  in  the  country ;  even  this  population  representing 
a  density  of  about  150  to  the  square  mile,  i.e.  a  density  nearly  twice 
that  of  Spain,  and  about  the  same  as  that  of  Denmark  or  Scotland. 

"The  numbers  of  the  several  tribes  must  stand  or  fall  with  the 
total. 

"  It  is  the  great  merit  of  Colenso  to  have  demonstrated  the  abso- 
lute impossibility  of  the  numbers ;  and  to  his  discussion  {Pentateuch, 
pt.  1.  chap,  iv.-xiii.)  reference  must  be  made  for .  further  detail. 
Colenso,  being  concerned  with  the  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch  as  a 
whole,  very  properly  tests  the  compatibility  of  the  numbers  with 
statements  in  any  part  of  the  whole.  In  what  is  here  said  they  are 
compared  only  with  the  statements  in  P. 

"2.  The  unreality  of  the  numbers  is  independently  proved  by 
comparing  them  one  with  another.  Thus :  the  number  of  male  first- 
born is  22,273;  allowing  the  number  of  female  firstborn  to  be  equal, 
the  total  number  of  firstborn  is  44,546,  and,  therefore,  the  total  num- 
ber of  Israelites  being  between  2,000,000  and  2,500,000,  the  average 
number  of  children  to  a  family  is  about  50!  Again,  if,  as  is  proba- 
ble, the  firstborn  of  the  mother  is  intended  (cp.  iii  12),  then,  since 
the  number  of  firstborn  and  of  mothers  must  have  been  identical, 
there  were  44,546  mothers :  but  the  number  of  women  being  approxi- 
mately the  same  as  of  men,  the  women  over  twenty  numbered  some- 
thing over  600,000,  and  therefore  only  about  1  in  14  or  15  women  over 
twenty  were  mothers !  The  comparison  of  the  two  sets  of  Levitical 
figures  bring  less  absurd,  but  still  unreal,  results  to  light.  The  aver- 
age European  percentage  of  persons  (male  and  females)  between 
thirty  and  fifty  years  of  age  to  the  whole  population  is  barely  25, 
and  in  the  U.  S.  A.  the  percentage  is  22;  but  the  percentage  (males 
only  considered)  among  the  Kohathites  is  32,  the  Gershonites  35, 
the  Merarites  52.  For  the  sake  of  simplicity  the  numbers  are  here 
taken  as  they  stand ;  some  slight  difference  would  be  made  by  allow- 
ing for  children  under  a  month,  or  again  by  adopting  the  view  that 
firstborn  means  the  firstborn  to  the  father,  and  then  allowing  for  the 
influence  of  polygamy ;  but  no  legitimate  allowance  or  device  can  get 
rid  of  the  essential  impossibility  of  the  figures.  For  a  full  discussion 
and  an  account  of  the  attempts  to  surmount  the  difficulties,  see  Co- 
lenso, Pentateuch,  pt.  i.  chap.  xiv. ;  pt.  vi.  p.  500  ff. 

"3.  The  40,000  (?  fighting  men)  of  Jud.  v  8  stands  in  striking 
contrast  with  the  301,000  (first  census  273,300)  of  men  above  twenty 
assigned  in  Nu.  xxvi  to  the  six  tribes  (Benjamin,  Ephraim,  Manas- 


158  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

seh,  Naphtali,  Zebulun,  Issachar)  celebrated  in  Deborah's  song  as 
participating  in  the  war.  Again,  the  male  Danites  above  twenty, 
according  to  the  census,  just  before  settling  in  Canaan  numbered 
64,000 ;  in  Jud.  xviii  we  have  a  narrative  recording  a  migration  of  at 
least  a  considerable  part  of  the  tribe  of  Dan :  yet  the  migrating  party 
includes  only  600  armed  men. 

"  But  if  the  numbers  are  unhistorical,  how  did  they  arise,  and  how 
much  do  they  mean?  The  total,  600,000,  was  derived  by  P  from  the 
earlier  work  JE  (Ex.  xii  37,  Nu.  xi  21),  unless  we  assume  that  the 
original  number  in  these  two  earlier  passages  has  been  removed  by 
a  later  harmonising  scribe  in  favour  of  P's  600,000.  How  the  num- 
ber was  obtained  we  are  just  as  little  able  to  determine  as  in  the 
parallel  cases  of  high  numbers  elsewhere  (e.g.  Jud.  xx  2,  17,  2  S. 
xxiv  9)  ;  it  must  suffice  to  have  shown  that  they  are  impossible  even 
under  the  conditions  prevailing  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan.  The 
exacter  totals  (603,550  and  601,730)  appear  to  have  been  given  to 
gain  an  air  of  reality;  in  the  same  way  the  numbers  of  the  indi- 
vidual tribes  are  not  precisely  ^"^^ |"  a  ,  ^.e.  50,000  for  each  tribe ;  but 
the  numbers  are  so  manipulated  that  in  each  census  precisely  six 
tribes  have  over  and  precisely  six  under  50,000;  somewhat  similarly 
the  number  of  the  Levitical  cities  (48)  is  represented  not  as  12X4, 
but  as  13+10+13+12  (Jos.  xxi  4-7).  Under  the  circumstances  it 
seems  likely  that  all  the  tribal  numbers  are  purely  artificial ;  though 
the  number  assigned  to  Judah  presupposes  a  population  not  greatly 
in  excess  of  a  quarter  of  a  million  (which  may  be  taken  as  a  rough 
approximation  to  the  actual  population  of  the  Southern  Kingdom), 
and  might,  if  it  stood  alone,  be  treated  as  an  anachronism  rather 
than  an  artifice.  The  fact  that  in  both  censuses  Judah  shows  the 
largest  numbers  may  be  intentional,  and  due  to  the  writer's  desire  to 
illustrate  the  pre-eminence  of  Judah  (cp.  p.  18)  ;  but  for  the  most 
part  no  significance  can  be  detected  in,  and  was  probably  not  in- 
tended to  attach  to,  either  the  numbers  of  the  several  tribes  them- 
selves or  the  variations  between  the  first  and  second  census. 

"The  numbers  of  the  male  firstborn  (22,273)  and  the  male  Levites 
(22,000)  are  intimately  connected.  Since  the  impossibility  of  the 
proportion  noted  above  forbids  us  to  believe  that  the  number  of  the 
male  firstborn  was  inferred  from  the  total  number  of  male  adults, 
we  must  consider  it  based  on  the  number  of  Levites,  a  slight  excess 
(273)  being  attributed  to  the  firstborn  in  order  to  admit  of  an  illus- 
tration of  the  law  of  xviii  16.  But  this  consideration  leads  us  fur- 
ther. The  number  of  the  Levites  was  reached  independently  and 
without  reference  to  the  600,000.  Whence  or  how  we  cannot  say :  it 
is  more  moderate  than  the  Chronicler's  impossible  figure  (38,000 
over  thirty  years  old r=  about  94,000  over  a  month  old),  but  scarcely 
corresponds  to  reality  at  any  period."     (Gray,  Numbers,  pp.  10-15.) 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  159 

That  the  numbers  as  stated  in  our  present  Hebrew  text  are 
impossible  must  be  immediately  conceded.  We  do  not  believe 
them  to  be  correct  as  they  stand.  But,  in  order  to  use  them  in 
support  of  the  higher  critical  position,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
show  that  the  documentary  hypothesis  removes,  or  at  any  rate 
alleviates,  the  difficulty.  After  what  we  have  seen  of  the 
mathematical  feats  of  the  critics,  nobody  will  be  surprised  to 
learn  that,  far  from  doing  this,  it  actually  doubles  the  embar- 
rassment. 

The  present  numbers  might  be  claimed  as  supporting  the 
hypothesis,  if  it  could  be  shown,  either  that  they  were  confined 
to  one  of  the  documents  (leaving  the  other  with  no  numerical 
statements  at  all,  or  else  only  with  statements  that  were  cred- 
ible), or,  at  any  rate,  that  one  of  the  documents  contained  no 
representations  that  were  inconsistent  with  these  numbers. 
The  exact  opposite  is  the  case.  The  inflated  numbers  are 
found  in  JE  as  well  as  in  P,  while  the  other  statements  of  P 
make  it  quite  clear  that  his  own  conception  of  the  number  of 
the  Israelites  was  very  moderate.  It  must  further  be  remem- 
bered that  we  are  dealing  with  men  who  have  proved  their 
incapacity  for  remembering  the  book  of  Joshua,  and  that  book 
naturally  helps  to  dislodge  the  theory. 

Before  indicating  the  lines  along  which  in  our  opinion  the 
solution  of  the  problem  is  to  be  sought,  we  propose  to  examine 
first  the  statements  of  JE,  and  then  those  of  P,  with  a  view  to 
showing  in  detail  that  the  documentary  theory  provides  abso- 
lutely no  assistance. 

1.  JE:  In  Exodus  i.  9,  20b;  v.  5  (all  J),  language  is  used 
(more  or  less  rhetorical  in  nature)  implying  that  the  Israel- 
ites are  very  numerous,  yet  in  iii.  8  the  same  source  speaks  of 
Canaan  as  "  a  good  land  and  a  large,"  which  it  certainly  was 
not  if  the  standard  for  judging  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  600,000 


160  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

fighting  men  that  J  gives  the  IsraeHtes  in  xii.  37.   On  the  other 
hand,  in  i.  15  ff.,  E  regards  two  midwives  as  sufficient  for  the 
needs  of  the  whole  community.    Exodus  xiv.  7  (E)  is  textu- 
ally  doubtful,  but  it  speaks  of  at  least  600  chariots  as  going  in 
pursuit.    This,  though  probably  quite  inadequate  for  the  600,- 
000,  suggests  a  considerable  force.    At  Elim  J  apparently  finds 
twelve  springs  of  water  sufficient  for  the  needs  of  the  people 
(xv.  27).    In  the  next  chapter  E  supplies  them  with  water  by 
smiting  a  rock.     Certainly  in  this  and  all  the  other  water  pas- 
sages it  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  nothing  to  suggest  "  a 
water  supply  sufficient  for  a  multitude  equal  to  the  combined 
populations  of  Glasgow,  Liverpool    and    Birmingham."     The 
organization  of  Exodus  xviii.  recognizes  a  body  large  enough 
to  need  rulers  of  thousands  (E)  ;   but  this  does  not  carry  the 
matter   much   further.     Exodus   xxiii.   gives   us   considerable 
light.     The  command  to  make  the  three  pilgrimage  festivals 
(xxiii.  17  (E  or  a  harmonist)  ;  xxxiv.  23  f.  (J  and  R^))  could 
hardly  have  been  intended  to  apply  to  anything  like  600,000 
people,  while  the  language  of  xxiii.  29  f.  (E),  promising  that 
the  Canaanites  shall  only  be  driven  out  gradually,    "lest  the 
land   become   desolate,   and   the   beast   of   the   field   multiply 
against  thee,"  would,  as  Colenso  has  pointed  out,  be  ridiculous 
in  the  case  of  a  small  land  like  Canaan  if  the  Israelites  num- 
bered some  2,000,000.    In  xxxii.  28  (J)  about  3000  men  fall. 
Numbers  x.  36  is  a  fragment  of  song  and  thousands  may  mean 
families ;   so  that  it  would  not  be  safe  to  draw  any  numerical 
inference  from  this  passage.    In  Numbers  xi.  21  (J)  we  once 
more  find  the  600,000  footmen ;   but  in  xx.  a  water-supply  is 
again  drawn  from  a  rock,  and  part  of  this  narrative  belongs  to 
the  same  source.    "  Who  can  count  the  dust  of  Jacob,  or  num- 
ber the  fourth  part  of  Israel  "  (Num.  xxiii.  10  (E))  is  another 
poetical   passage,   which   cannot  be   pressed   into   service   for 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  161 

statistical  purposes,  and  we  pass  to  the  book  of  Joshua.  The 
compassing  of  Jericho  in  chapter  vi.  (partly  J  and  partly  E) 
obviously  excludes  the  idea  of  the  army's  numbering  anything 
that  faintly  approached  600,000  warriors.  In  vii.  (J)  the  peo- 
ple are  thrown  into  a  panic  by  the  defeat  of  some  three 
thousand  men,  with  thirty-six  killed!  In  viii.  J  knows  of  an 
ambush  of  30,000  (ver.  3),  but  E  has  only  5000  (ver.  12),  and 
the  total  adult  population  of  Ai  (male  and  female)  was  only 
12,000  (ver.  25). 

Such  are  the  principal  data  of  JE.  It  will  be  seen  that  there 
is  a  glaring  discrepancy  between  a  few  figures  and  the  rest  of 
the  narrative. 

2.  Like  J,  P  uses  language  of  a  rhetorical  character  indi- 
cating that  the  Israelites  were  numerous  (Ex.  i.  7).  He  too 
gives  the  various  numbers  set  out  in  the  above  extract  from 
Dr.  Gray,  which  need  not  be  repeated  here,  and  these  appear  at 
first  sight  to  be  confirmed  by  Exodus  xxxviii.  25  f.  In  addition 
we  find  that  14,700  Israelites  died  on  one  occasion  (Num.  xvi. 
49  (Hebrew  xvii.  14))  and  24,000  on  another  (Num.  xxv.  9). 
But  side  by  side  with  these  passages  we  find  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent representation.  P's  ideas  of  an  adequate  water-supply 
are  identical  with  those  of  J  and  E  (Num.  xx.,  etc.).  His 
tabernacle  and  sacred  furniture  are  so  small  and  light  as  to  be 
capable  of  transportation  in  six  pair-ox  wagons  assisted  by  Le- 
vitical  porters.  The  Israelites  are  so  few  that  all  the  higher 
priestly  duties  can  be  discharged  by  the  males  of  a  single  fam- 
ily. The  camps  are  all  within  sound  of  two  trumpets  (Num. 
X.  2).  The  congregation  can  assemble  without  difficulty  at  the 
door  of  the  tabernacle  (Lev.  viii.  4).  In  Numbers  xxxi.  he 
sends  an  expedition  against  the  Midianites,  but  the  warriors 
number  only  12,000  (4  f.),  though  the  booty  seems  rather  large 
(ver.  32-54).     But  it  is  in  Joshua  that  the  greatest  surprise 


162  Essays  in  Pentatcnchal  Criticism. 

awaits  us.  Unfortunately  we  have  only  one  number  there,  but 
it  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  the  data  of  the  book  of  Num- 
bers. According  to  the  last  census,  Reuben  had  43,730  fighting 
men,  and  Gad  40,500.  Yet,  in  Joshua,  the  united  forces  of 
Reuben,  Gad,  and  half  Manasseh  amounted,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  text,  to  only  40,000  (iv.  13).  How  can  this  be  made 
to  fit  in  with  the  critical  theory? 

The  fact  is  that  the  documentary  theory  does  not  solve  the 
difficulties  of  the  numbers :  it  shirks  them.  We  must  look  else- 
where for  the  desired  explanation. 

On  the  materials  that  are  at  present  available  it  is  impossible 
to  restore  the  original  numbers ;  but  it  is  possible  to  go  some 
way  behind  the  Massoretic  text  and  show  how  they  reached 
their  present  form.  For  this  purpose  it  will  be  necessary  to 
take  into  account  facts  that  are  habitually  neglected. 

1.  We  begin  with  Joshua  iv.  13,  where  the  fighting  men  of 
the  trans-Jordanic  tribes  are  given  as  40,000.  Here  the  solu- 
tion is  extremely  easy.  In  Hebrew  the  tens  from  30  to  90  are 
the  plurals  of  the  units.  Now  it  is  known  that  in  Hebrew 
MSS.  a  final  D  (the  sign  of  the  masculine  plural)  was  fre- 
quently not  written,  and  Lagarde,  as  reported  by  Dr.  Driver, 
says  that  final  ^  and  final  n  were  also  omitted  in  MSS.  used 
by  the  LXX,  being  represented  by  a  mark  of  abbreviation 
(consisting  of  a  little  stroke).^  It  is  well  known  that,  al- 
though modern  Hebrew  writing  distinguishes  between  the 
forms  used  in  certain  letters,  according  as  they  occur  at  the 

^  Samuel,  p.  Ixix.  We  have  not  been  able  to  see  a  copy  of  the  work 
of  Lagarde's  to  which  Dr.  Driver  refers :  but  we  would  point  out  that 
there  are  ample  examples  in  extant  Hebrew  MSS.  and  editions.  See, 
for  instance,  pp.  601,  618,  820  of  C.  D.  Ginsburg's  "  Introduction  to 
the  Massoretico-Critical  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible."  His  chapter 
on  "Abbreviations"  should  also  be  consulted.  It  is  noteworthy  that 
in  some  of  Ginsburg's  examples  the  abbreviations  do  not  even  have  a 
mark  to  show  that  they  are  abbreviations. 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  163 

end  of  a  word  or  in  some  other  position,  such  duplicate 
forms  were  not  used  earlier.  Accordingly  forty  thousand 
could  have  been  written  D75<x;2iX,  possibly  with  a  little  stroke 
after  the  V-  But  this  differs  from  4000  either  not  at  all,  or,  if 
the  little  strokes  were  used,  only  by  the  absence  of  the  mark  of 
abbreviation  after  the  2-  It  is,  therefore,  not  surprising  to 
learn  that  the  Lucianic  recension  of  the  LXX  actually  has 
4000  as  the  figure.  It  may  be  added  that  such  variations  of 
reading  are  extremely  common.  For  example,  in  Numbers  i. 
21,  forty  (thousand),  one  MS.  omits  the  termination;  in  verse 
27,  for  four,  one  AIS.  had  in  the  first  hand  forty,  while  another 
has  the  final  n  of  nyniy  over  an  erasure  (a  fact  that  points 
in  the  same  direction)  ;  in  1  Samuel  xiii.  5  the  Lucianic  LXX 
and  the  Syriac  have  3000  for  tlie  Hebrew  30,000.  It  would 
seem  that  in  our  passage  of  Joshua  the  reading  4000  is 
clearly  preferable,  and  this  number  may  be  historical.  In  any 
case  it  cannot  be  far  from  the  mark. 

2.  The  case  of  the  Pentateuchal  numbers  is  far  more  com- 
plicated. We  must  therefore  break  it  up  into  sections  for  the 
purpose  of  discussion.  We  begin  with  Exodus  xxxviii.  25  ff., 
which  states  that  the  silver  produced  by  the  ransom  of  souls 
at  the  census  amounted  to  100  talents  1775  shekels.  At  first 
sight  this  appears  to  confirm  the  census  numbers ;  but  on 
closer  investigation  it  becomes  evident  that  there  is  something 
wrong  with  the  text.  In  the  first  place,  this  passage  depends 
on  the  census,  which  was  not  taken  until  after  the  erection  of 
the  tabernacle.  Secondly,  a  comparison  of  xxxviii.  24-31  with 
xxv.  3  and  xxxv.  22-24  shows  that  something  has  been  lost. 
In  xxv.  3  God  commands  the  taking  of  an  offering  of  three 
metals  —  gold,  silver,  and  brass  (bronze).  In  xxxvi.  we  read 
that  offerings  of  these  three  metals  were  in  fact  brought:  in 
this  passage  of  xxxviii.  we  read  of  the  use  made  of  the  gold 


164  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

and  the  brass,  and  we  expect  to  find  an  account  of  the  silver 
between  the  other  two  metals.  Instead  we  meet  with  this  mis- 
placed passage,  referring  to  the  census.  Moreover  the  com- 
mand for  the  ransom  of  souls  in  xxx.  11-16  provides  that  the 
proceeds  shall  be  used  for  the  service  of  the  tent  of  meeting, 
not  for  its  erection.  When  we  combine  these  facts  with  what 
we  have  already  learned  about  the  order  of  the  Pentateuchal 
narrative  and  the  divergence  of  the  Septuagint  in  these  chap- 
ters, the  inference  seems  plain.  These  chapters  go  back  to  a 
MS.  that  was  defective.  The  account  of  the  use  of  the  silver 
offering  had  perished.  To  make  this  good,  the  account  of  the 
census  was  removed  from  its  proper  position  and  inserted 
here.  It  is  impossible  to  say  what  other  editorial  adjustments 
the  text  m.ay  have  undergone.  The  evidence  of  the  LXX 
seems  to  show  that  the  text  was  known  to  be  in  a  bad  condi- 
tion, and  that  various  attempts  were  made  to  produce  a  satis- 
factory version  of  it.^     But,  for  our  purpose,  it  is  sufficient  to 

^  It  is  no  part  of  our  plan  to  fllscuss  the  difficulties  that  beset  the 
account  of  the  Tabernacle,  as  this  requires  expert  knowledge  that 
we  lack.  At  the  same  time  we  think  it  right  to  point  to  certain  phe- 
nomena that  have  been  overlooked : — 

1.  As  shown  above,  the  account  demonstrably  contained  at  least 
one  lacuna.  It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  possible  that  it  may  have  con- 
tained others,  and  that  this  is  the  explanation  (at  any  rate  in  part) 
of  the  omissions  of  which  the  critics  complain. 

2.  It  will  become  increasingly  clear  that  very  little  reliance  can 
be  placed  on  the  numbers.  The  amount  of  the  silver  here  obviously 
depends  on  the  census  numbers,  which  are  corrupt.  In  the  case  of 
the  brass,  Kennicott  records  an  extant  Hebrew  variant  giving  twenty 
as  the  number  of  talents,  instead  of  seventy;  while  the  facts  we 
shall  have  to  note  about  the  transmission  of  Hebrew  numbers  are 
such  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  condemn  any  narrative  on  the 
ground  that  the  numbers  it  contains  are  excessive.  These  phe- 
nomena, together  with  the  evidence  of  the  LXX  and  the  divergence 
in  the  statement  of  Deuteronomy  as  to  the  construction  of  the  Ark, 
seem  to  show  that  the  text  of  these  chapters  has  suffered  very  seri- 
ously in  transmission. 


Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism.  165 

see  that  these  verses  belong  properly  to  the  account  of  the  first 
census,  and  that  the  numbers  they  contain  will  stand  or  fall 
with  the  latter. 

3.  Coming  now  to  the  census  itself,  there  is  extant  evi- 
dence to  show  that  the  text  once  existed  in  a  form  in  which 
Gad  lacked  fifty  of  the  numbers  now  assigned  to  that  tribe  in 
Numbers  i.  25.  Owing  to  the  amount  of  information  availa- 
ble, the  importance  of  this  greatly  exceeds  that  of  the  number 
involved,  for  we  are  enabled  to  see  clearly  one  of  the  ways  in 
which  the  numbers  grew. 

At  present  the  numbers  of  Gad  are  forty  and  five  thousand 
six  hundred  and  fifty.  Three  of  Kennicott's  Hebrew  MSS. 
(including  6)  omit  "  and  fifty,"  and  these  are  confirmed  by  two 
Greek  MSS.  (54  and  75  according  to  Holmes's  notation,  i.e. 
the  g  and  n  of  the  new  Cambridge  Septuagint)  and  the 
Georgian.  With  regard  to  the  number  of  the  hundreds,  one 
Hebrew  MS.  omits  the  word,  another  reads  "  and  five,"  while 
a  third  (6)  has  the  first  two  letters  (i.e.  the  ^  of  ^^^  over 
an  erasure.  The  interpretation  we  put  upon  these  facts  is  as 
follows :  At  a  time  when  Gad  had  only  a  round  number  of 
hundreds,  corruption  set  in.  Two  readings  arose  —  six  hun- 
dred and  five  hundred.  The  five  was  inserted  in  the  margin  of 
one  or  more  MSS.  that  read  six  hundred.  Then  it  was  taken 
into  the  text  and  read  as  "  fifty,"  in  accordance  with  the  com- 
mon mistake  that  we  have  already  explained.  The  sum  total 
of  the  Israelites  in  i.  46 ;  ii.  32,  and  its  dependent  number  in  the 
half-shekel  ransom  were  then  altered  to  agree,  and  this  num- 
ber was  impressed  on  all  the  MSS.  Fortunately  in  a  few  cases 
the  numbers  of  Gad  were  not  brought  into  harmony  with  the 
new  form  of  the  text.  No.  6  had  500  originally,  and  traces 
survive  in  the  other  MSS.  Similarly  in  ii.  15  a  memory  of  the 
earlier  text  is  preserved  by  two   other  Hebrew  MSS.,  that 


166 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


again  omit  "  and  50."  Thus  it  was  that  the  scholarship  of  a 
past  age  reinforced  the  hosts  of  Israel  with  a  contingent  of 
fifty  paper  Gadites. 

Before  passing  from  this  source  of  MS.  corruption,  we 
would  draw  attention  to  another  biblical  passage  in  which  it 
has  probably  been  at  work.  In  1  Samuel  vi.  19  we  read  of  the 
smiting  of  "  seventy  men,  fifty  thousand  men."  Yet  in 
the  text  as  known  to  Josephus  the  casualties  appear  to  have 
amounted  to  seventy  only.  Doubtless  the  ''  fifty  "  represented 
a  variant  to  the  seventy  with  the  result  that  "  fifty  men  "  was 
written  in  the  margin,  while  the  thousand  came  in  as  the  result 
of  the  source  of  corruption  next  to  be  mentioned. 

4.  A  study  of  the  variants  to  the  census  figures  collected  by 
Kennicott  reveals  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  readings  de- 
pend upon  the  undue  omission  or  insertion  of  the  Hebrew 
word  for  thousand.    Here  are  some  illustrations : — 


Reference. 

Received  Text. 

Variant. 

Num. 

i.  23. 

Fifty  thousand. 

1  MS.  (109)  thousand  and 
fifty. 

Num. 

i.  33. 

Forty  thousand. 

2  MSS.  (84  and  189)  omit 
thousand. 

Num. 

i.  35. 

Two  and  thirty  thousand. 

1    MS.    (107)    omits  thou- 

sand. 

Num. 

ii.     6. 

Fifty  thousand. 

1  MS.  (109)  omits  thou- 
sand. 

Num. 

ii.  11. 

Forty  thousand. 

1  MS.  (189)  omits  thou- 
sand. 

Num. 

ii.  16. 

A  hundred  thousand. 

1  MS.  (109)  omits  thou- 
sand. 

lUd. 

And     four     hundred 
fifty. 

and 

1  MS.  (89)  and  four  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand. 

When  it  is  remembered  that  we  have  ample  evidence  of  the 
use  of  abbreviations  in  Hebrew  MSS.,  it  is  natural  to  suspect 
that  variations  of  this  kind  are  due  to  the  use  of  some  abbre- 
viation for  thousand  which  was  readily  inserted  or  omitted  in 
mistake,  and  that  the  archetypes  of  109  and  189,  in  particular, 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  167 

presented  texts  which  frequently  differed  from  the  generally 
received  tradition. 

5.  A  number  of  facts  may  be  explained  by  another  conjec- 
ture which  is  also  based  on  the  known  partiality  for  abbrevia- 
tions. The  use  of  a  single  letter  to  denote  a  word  is  abundantly 
testified  by  our  existing  material.  Now  the  initial  letter  of  the 
Hebrew  word  for  hundred  is  o,  the  final  letter  of  the  tens. 
The  supposition  lies  near  at  hand  that  in  some  cases  a  Oi  writ- 
ten as  the  final  letter  of  a  ten  was  mistaken  by  a  copyist  for  an 
abbreviation  for  the  word  ''  hundred."  Thus,  in  2  Samuel 
xxiv.  9,  Israel  has  800,000  warriors  and  Judah  500,000.  It  is 
suggested  that,  in  an  age  when  MS.  abbreviations  were  com- 
mon, these  figures  may  have  arisen  from  a  misreading  of  80,- 
000  and  50,000  respectively.  Similarly,  in  2  Chronicles  xiii.  3, 
where  the  received  text  has  four  hundred  HIND  yn'l^5  one  MS. 
reads  fourteen  ("lt^•y  for  nit^D).  Such  a  variant  would  naturally 
arise  if  the  second  word  were  represented  by  a  single  letter 
which  had  become  illegible,  and  was  consequently  misread  by 
a  scribe. 

6.  It  is  well  known  that  a  study  of  biblical  numbers  re- 
veals a  general  tendency  to  multiply  by  ten,  even  where  the 
palseographical  peculiarities  noted  above  do  not  assist  the  pro- 
cess. Thus  in  Numbers  xxxi.  37-40  the  Syriac  reads  6750  for 
675,  720  for  72,  610  for  61,  320  for  32.  Similarly  Canon  R. 
B.  Girdlestone  writes,  as  the  result  of  his  comparison  of  the 
texts  of  Kings  and  Chronicles,  that  the  Chronicler  "  tends  to 
turn  hundreds  into  thousands  and  sometimes  the  LXX  does 
the  same."  ^  This  tendency  must  be  borne  in  mind  in  any 
estimate  of  the  processes  through  which  the  numbers  have 
passed. 

7.  Our   evidence   further   shows   that   there   were   certain 

^  Deuterographs  (1894),  p.  x. 


168  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

cases  in  which  the  number  of  the  original  text  had  become 
quite  uncertain.  For  instance,  in  Numbers  i.  23,  the  received 
text  has  300,  one  MS.  of  Kennicott's  500,  another  700;  while 
Lucian  read  400.  Or,  again,  in  Numbers  xxvi.  47,  for  the  400 
of  the  ordinary  texts,  one  MS.  has  500,  another  700,  two  oth- 
ers have  the  usual  reading  over  erasures,  while  the  LXX  reads 
600.  Examples  could,  of  course,  be  multiplied  with  ease,  but 
these  will  suffice  to  illustrate  the  fact  that  there  are  cases 
within  our  knowledge  where  an  original  number  had  simply 
become  corrupt,  and  no  man  can  say  whether  any  of  the 
various  readings  is  to  be  preferred,  and,  if  so,  which,  or 
whether  the  original  is  not  represented  by  any  extant  text. 

8.  Some  of  these  illustrations  also  give  us  the  clue  to  an- 
other factor  that  has  been  at  work  in  the  formation  of  our 
present  text.  The  books  were  studied  by  persons  who  could  of 
course  add  up  figures,  and,  at  any  rate  in  some  instances,  the 
text  has  been  amended  on  an  arithmetical  basis;  thus,  to  take 
the  case  just  cited,  where  Lucian  reads  400  in  Numbers  i.  23, 
as  against  the  300  of  the  Hebrew  text.  If  this  stood  alone  the 
total  of  the  fighting  men  in  verse  46  would  necessarily  be 
Avrong,  but  the  difficulty  is  removed  by  his  reading  600  for 
700  in  verse  39.  Similarly  his  text  makes  the  numbers  of  the 
Levites  in  chapter  iii.  add  up  correctly,  for  it  presents  us  with 
7200  Gershonites  in  verse  22,  instead  of  the  7500  of  the  Mas- 
soretic  text,  thus  arriving  at  the  total  22,000  stated  in  verse  39. 
In  such  cases  it  is  clear  that  scribes  have  made  changes  in  a 
faulty  text  in  deference  to  the  principles  of  addition. 

9.  One  other  factor  must  be  taken  into  account.  In  deter- 
mining between  various  possibilities,  some  criterion  must  have 
been  employed  by  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  hand  on  the  text. 
If  a  word  could  be  read  as  either  four  or  forty,  the  choice  of 
reading  must  have  been  made  for  some  reason  or  other.    Now 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  169 

it  is  material  to  observe  that  the  Pentateuch  was  copied  in  ages 
when  the  Israelites  were  infinitely  more  numerous  than  in  the 
days  of  Moses:  and  it  is  probable  that  the  judgment  of  the 
scribes  would  be  swayed  rather  by  their  knowledge  of  the  con- 
ditions of  their  own  day  than  by  historical  considerations.  The 
historical  spirit  is  not  found  at  all  periods  of  human  history. 
Further,  national  pride  would  probably  tend  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. It  is  not  every  age  that  has  a  statistical  conscience. 
Hence  there  would  usually  be  a  marked  leaning  towards  the 
larger  number. 

We  think,  therefore,  that  the  most  probable  account  of  the 
present  form  of  the  numbers  may  be  simply  stated  as  follows : 
Numbers  that  were  originally  correct  underwent  corruption  in 
the  first  instance  partly  through  the  ordinary  decay  of  a  MS. 
text,  and  partly  through  the  peculiarities  of  Hebrew  writing. 
These  causes  were  reinforced  by  a  natural  but  unfortunately 
misleading  theory  of  the  copying  scribes  and  by  well-meant 
but  unhappy  attempts  to  correct  obvious  errors.  These  causes, 
acting  sometimes  successively,  sometimes  jointly,  have  resulted 
in  our  present  received  text,  but  the  last  stages  of  the  process 
can  still  be  traced  in  some  instances :  and  by  arguing  from  the 
known  to  the  unknown  we  can  obtain  some  adequate  under- 
standing of  the  way  in  which  our  present  difficulties  arose. 

THE  WAR  WITH   MIDIAN. 

The  thirty-first  chapter  of  Numbers  has  been  the  object  of 
particularly  numerous  onslaughts  by  the  critics.  Colenso  at- 
tacked it  on  chronological  grounds.  We  have  met  this  in  our 
discussion  of  the  chronology  of  the  concluding  chapters  of 
Numbers.  Dr.  Gray  (Numbers,  pp.  418  f.)  claims  that  the 
story  is  not  history,  but  Midrash.  His  reasons  appear  to  be: 
(1)  that  if  every  male  Midianite  was  slain,  Midian  must  have 


170  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

disappeared  from  history  in  the  time  of  Moses,  whereas  it  is 
found  subsequently;  (2)  that  the  law  of  the  division  of  the 
booty  (ver.  25-30)  "  is  an  inference  from  ancient  Hebrew 
custom  "  (1  Sam.  xxx.  24  f.)  ;  and  (3)  that  it  is  incredible  that 
"  the  Israelites,  while  slaughtering  a  multitude,  never  lose  a 
single  man."  It  is  true  that  this  is  not  all  he  writes.  Thus  he 
complains  that  verses  19-24  merely  describe  the  application  of 
the  law  of  chapter  xix. ;  but,  as  this  and  similar  remarks  have 
no  probative  force  whatever,  they  may  be  neglected.  Now,  as  to 
"  every  male  Midianite,"  we  have  already  explained  that  "  all  " 
is  not  a  mathematical  term  and  need  not  be  pressed.  Further 
we  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  Midianites  in  question  were 
really  a  subdivision  of  the  tribe.  Such  a  view  presents  no  dif- 
ficulty when  it  is  understood  that  the  Midianites  were  a  no- 
madic Arabian  tribe,  so  that  the  reference  is  probably  to  that 
particular  branch  of  the  tribe  which  had  been  implicated  in  the 
sin  against  Israel.  With  regard  to  the  law  of  booty  we  ex- 
posed this  confusion  on  pages  113  f.  of  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra  for  January,  1908,  and  need  not  labor  the  point  further 
Lastly,  we  see  no  incredibility  in  the  statement  that  on  this 
expedition  no  lives  were  lost ;  but  this  remark  must  be  qualified 
by  another,  viz.  that  there  seems  no  particular  reason  for  as- 
suming that  the  numbers  (which  are  very  large)  may  not  have 
suffered  in  transmission,  owing  to  the  causes  already  indicated. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  one  very  important  legal  point 
on  this  chapter  which  entirely  rebuts  the  late  Midrash  theory. 
Moses  expressly  permits  unions  with  Midianitish  women  (ver. 
18).  This,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say,  is  in  entire  accord 
with  the  views  and  practice  of  the  husband  of  Zipporah,  who 
forbade  unions  with  foreign  women  for  the  high  priest  only, 
but  for  no  other  Israelite,  and  laid  down  express  provisions 
(Deut.  xxi.  10-14)  for  the  regulation  of  unions  with  foreign 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism.  171 

captives.  But  it  is  utterly  alien  to  the  spirit  and  practice  of 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  the  supposititious  priestly  school.  If  there 
was  one  thing  that  was  anathema  to  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  it 
was  a  union  with  a  foreign  woman. 

CONCLUSION. 

We  have  now  carried  out  our  promise  to  investigate  the  as- 
sertions of  the  higher  critics  respecting  the  main  difficulties 
alleged  in  regard  to  the  narrative  of  the  last  four  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  our  readers  can  form  their  own  opinions 
of  the  competence  of  the  higher  critics  to  deal  with  the  mat- 
ters in  question.  It  will  be  in  place  that,  in  conclusion,  we 
should  say  a  few  words  on  the  question  of  authorship. 

The  secure  basis  of  the  inquiry*  will  in  the  future  be  the  in- 
dubitable Mosaic  authenticity  of  the  speeches  in  Deuteronomy 
(apart  from  certain  well-known  glosses).  That  authenticity 
can  be  proved  by  three  separate  lines  of  argument:  First,  it 
is  most  distinctly  asserted  that  these  speeches  are  by  Moses. 
Secondly,  the  covenant  structure  of  the  book  (as  well  as  the 
style)  makes  it  certain  that  they  are  from  the  same  hand  as  the 
laws,  and  the  authenticity  of  these  laws  cannot  be  doubtful, 
save  in  inquiries  conducted  or  dominated  by  men  who  are  not 
jurists.^     Thirdly,  such  passages  as  Deuteronomy  xi.   10  are 

^  See  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  pp.  71-75.  It  may  be  worth  while 
to  point  out  the  errors  of  Dr.  Driver's  reasoning  with  regard  to 
Deuteronomy  xxiii.  5  (4),  "in  the  way,  when  ye  came  forth  out  of 
Egypt."  He  writes :  "  Here,  at  any  rate,  where  the  reference  is  to 
a  date  at  the  close  of  the  40  years'  wanderings,  the  expression  *  when 
ye  came  forth  out  of  Egypt '  could  not  have  been  used  by  a  contem- 
porary, writing  but  six  months  afterwards,  but  betrays  the  writer 
of  a  later  age,  in  which  the  40  years  had  dwindled  to  a  point." 
(Deuteronomy,  p.  61.)  The  fact  is  that  the  reference  is  to  an  inci- 
dent which,  though  not  narrated  in  our  present  text  of  Numbers, 
had  occurred  some  thirty-eight  years  previously.  Moses  had  sent 
from  Kadesh  not  merely  to  Edom,  as  stated  in  Numbers,  but  also 


172  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

only  applicable  to  the  Mosaic  age,  and  would  not  have  been 
forged  at  any  subsequent  time. 

But  these  speeches  will  inevitably  carry  with  them  large  por- 
tions of  the  anonymous  narrative  of  the  preceding  books 
which  are  intimately  connected  with  them.  In  this  matter  the 
labors  of  the  critics  have  not  been  w^holly  fruitless,  but  have 
gone  far  to  show  the  intimacy  of  connection  between  Deuter- 
onomy and  passages  in  the  earlier  books. 

(Judges  xi.  17)  to  the  king  of  Moab.  It  is  quite  clear,  from  the  lan- 
guage of  Jephthah's  message,  that  this  took  place  near  the  beginning 
of  the  forty  years.  It  is  natural  that  Moses,  speaking  some  thirty- 
eight  years  later,  should  use  the  phrase  "when  ye  came  forth  out 
of  Egypt "  to  refer  to  this  period.  The  same  phrase  is  used  to  desig- 
nate the  same  period  in  Deuteronomy  xxiv.  9  (Miriam's  leprosy  on 
the  way  to  Kadesh)  and  xxv.  17  (Amalek's  attack  at  Rephidim). 
Indeed  had  the  reference  in  this  passage  been  to  the  forty  years  as 
a  point,  we  should  have  had  "  because  they  met  you  not  with  bread 
....  and  because  they  hired  Balaam  .  .  .  .,  when  ye  came  forth  out 
of  Egypt."  But  the  actual  text  of  Deuteronomy  puts  the  phrase 
about  Egypt  after  the  charge  of  not  meeting  the  Israelites,  thus 
showing  that  this  charge,  as  contrasted  with  the  accusation  of  hiring 
Balaam   (which  occurred  later)   refers  to  an  earlier  period. 

Two  other  phrases  are  sometimes  pressed  into  service  by  the  critics 
—  "  at  that  time  "  and  "  beyond  Jordan,"  In  both  cases  the  answer  is  the 
same,  viz.  that  the  use  of  language  is  determined  by  the  linguistic  feel- 
ing of  the  age,  and  not  by  the  dogmas  of  strangers  living  three  thou- 
sand years  later.  "At  that  time  "  can  obviously  be  used  in  Hebrew 
idiom  where  an  English  writer  would  probably  choose  "  then."  But 
that  proves  nothing  as  to  authorship.  As  to  the  other  phrase,  "  be- 
yond Jordan"  is  used  in  the  speeches  once  of  the  East  (Deut.  iii.  8) 
in  a  passage  which  Mr.  Carpenter  does  not  regard  as  original,  and 
three  times  of  the  West  (iii.  20,  25;  xi.  30).  This  probably  should 
merely  be  held  to  show  that  here  again  Hebrew  idiom  is  different 
from  English  (see  especially  Num.  xxxii.  19,  32  ;  xxxv.  14).  The  force 
of  the  passages  in  Numbers  may,  however,  be  held  by  some  (as  by 
Dr.  Driver,  Deuteronomy,  p.  xliii,  note,  as  to  Numbers  xxxii.  14)  to 
be  broken  by  other  considerations.  Yet  at  the  worst  Deuteronomy 
iii.  8  could  only  be  regarded  as  proving  that  Mr.  Carpenter  is  right 
in  thinking  this  verse  an  interpolation.  It  shows  a  hopeless  lack  of 
sense  of  proportion  to  deny  the  Mosaic  origin  of  these  lengthy 
speeches  on  the  ground  of  a  single  phrase  in  one  verse! 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criitcism.  173 

While,  therefore,  it  is  undoubtedly  the  fact  that  the  Penta- 
teuch contains  post-Mosaic  elements,  the  possible  extent  of 
such  elements  will  be  recognized  as  very  much  more  restricted 
than  is  now  supposed  to  be  the  case,  while  the  wild  theories  at 
present  current  as  to  documents,  schools  of  writers,  forgers 
of  laws,  revelation  by  literary  fraud,  etc.,  will  be  recognized 
as  merely  absurd.  On  the  other  hand,  the  duties  of  the  textual 
critic  will  be  seen  to  possess  far  more  importance  than  has 
been  generally  allowed. 

The  effect  of  such  conclusions  on  the  views  entertained  of 
the  history  of  Israel  must  of  course  be  prodigious.  Genuine 
Mosaic  legislation,  genuine  Mosaic  prophecies,  genuine  Mo- 
saic narratives,  will  revolutionize  current  conceptions  of  Old 
Testament  history.  And  the  work  done  by  conservative  Pen- 
tateuchal criticism  is  being  reinforced  by  the  discoveries  of 
archaeology.  Colenso  could  write :  "If  our  view  be  correct, 
then  the  use  of  the  word  Salem,^  also,  especially  as  it  occurs  in 
the  substance  of  the  main  story,  would  indicate  a  writer  living 
in  later  times ;  since  the  Canaanitish  name  of  the  city  was 
Jebus,  Josh,  xviii.  28,  Jud.  xix.  10,  11,  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  name  Jerusalem,  *  possession  of  peace,'  was  first 
given  to  it  by  David,  after  its  capture  by  him  from  the  Jebu- 
sites."  (The  Pentateuch,  Part  ii.  p.  318.)  No  critic  could 
now  be  found  to  indorse  this  view,  seeing  that  the  Tell-el- 
Amarna  tablets  have  disposed  of  this  notion  once  for  all.  Sim- 
ilarly it  is  extremely  improbable  that  Mr.  Carpenter  would 
now  argue  elaborately  for  a  late  date  for  "J  "  on  the  ground 
that  it  takes  the  Tetragrammaton  to  have  been  known  early  and 
used  outside  Israel.^    Nor,  again,  in  view  of  the  fresh  evidence 

^Gen.  xiv.  38. 

'Oxford  Hexateuch,  vol.  i.  p.  107.  It  is  probable  that  the  Tetra- 
grammaton has  not  yet  been  discovered  in  Babylonian  material.  See 
an  article  by  Dr.  S.  Daiches  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  Assyriologie,  1908. 


174  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

published  by  Mr.  King,  is  it  possible  to  hold  that  "  there  are 
grave  chronological  embarrassments  affecting  the  contempo- 
raneousness of  Abraham  with  the  Mesopotamian  kings."  ^ 
The  progress  of  monumental  research  is  gradually  grinding 
such  arguments  out  of  the  critical  case,  and  the  process,  if 
slow,  is  at  any  rate  singularly  effective. 

But  if  it  should  hereafter  be  found  in  early  cuneiform  tablets,  the 
discovery  would  only  confirm  the  statement  of  Genesis:. 
^  Op.  dU  vol.  i.  p.  158. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    FIRST   THREE   CHAPTERS   OF 
WELLHAUSEN'S  PROLEGOMENA. 

In  the  "  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism "  ^  the  current 
analysis  of  the  last  four  books  of  the  Law  was  carefully 
tested.  It  is  natural  to  follow  them  up  with  an  examination  of 
the  main  historical  theory  that  has  been  reared  on  that  analy- 
sis. I  begin  with  Dr.  Driver's  statement  of  one  of  the  under- 
lying postulates  of  that  theory.  He  writes  as  follows  on 
pages  145  and  146  of  his  "  Deuteronomy  " : — 

" ....  By  ancient  custom  in  Israel,  slaughter  and  sacrifice  were 
identical  (cf.  phil.  note,  below)  :  the  flesh  of  domestic  animals, 
such  as  the  ox,  the  sheep,  and  the  goat  (as  is  still  the  case  among 
the  Arabs)  was  not  eaten  habitually;  when  it  was  eaten,  the 
slaughter  of  the  animal  was  a  sacrificial  act,  and  its  fiesh  could  not 
be  lawfully  partaken  of,  unless  the  fat  and  blood  were  first  pre- 
sented at  an  altar.  ...  So  long  as  local  altars  were  legal  in  Ca- 
naan (Ex.  XX  24),  domestic  animals  slain  for  food  in  the  coun- 
try districts  could  be  presented  at  one  of  them :  with  the  limitation 
of  all  sacrifice  to  a  central  sanctuary,  the  old  rule  had  necessarily 
to  be  relaxed;  a  distinction  had  to  be  drawn  between  slaughtering 
for  food  and  slaughtering  for  sacrifice;  the  former  was  permitted 
freely  in  all  places  ....  the  latter  was  prohibited  except  at  the 
one  sanctuary." 

Yet  on  page  145  itself  Dr.  Driver  in  the  philological  note 
referred  to  in  the  above  extract  explains  that  the  word  for 
"  kill "  in  Deuteronomy  xii.  15  "  denotes  to  slaughter  sim- 
ply," and  compares  1  Samuel  xxviii.  24;  1  Kings  xix.  21, 
i.e.  two  passages  relating  to  times  when,  according  to  his 
^  Supra^,  pp.  1-174. 

175 


176  Essays  in  Pentatetichal  Criticism. 

former  note,  non-sacriiicial  slaughter  was  unknown.  I  once 
had  some  correspondence  with  an  eminent  critic  on  this  point, 
and  after  the  exchange  of  some  letters  wrote  as  follows : — 

On  the  question  whether  all  slaughter  was  sacrificial,  you  write, 
"  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  in  1  Sam  xxviii  24  there  was 
a  sacrifice."  No  doubt  the  reason  for  your  attitude  is  that  you 
were  away  from  books  and  could  not  refer  to  the  other  passages 
cited  in  my  pamphlet.  I  would  therefore  specifically  put  the  fol- 
lowing questions  to  you  which  may  decide  you.  {a)  What  rea- 
sons  have  you  for  saying  there  was  a  sacrifice  in  1  Sam.  xxviii. 
24?  What  evidence  have  you  for  your  theory  on  this  point?  (6) 
Was  there  a  sacrifice  of  the  calf  in  Gen.  xviii.  7?  if  so,  who  per- 
formed it?  I  repeat  these  questions  as  to  (c)  Gen.  xxvii.  9-14; 
(d)  Gen.  xliii.  16;  (e)  1  Sam.  xxv.  11;  (f)  1  Kings  xix.  21.  (g)  I 
further  ask  (i)  whether  in  each  one  of  these  cases  there  was  an 
altar,  and  (ii)  whether  in  each  case  the  place  was  holy  as  the  re- 
sult till  the  time  of  Josiah.  (h)  In  Ex.  xxi.  37  does  the  legisla- 
tion contemplate  sacrifice  of  stolen  animals  and  places  made  holy 
as  the  result?  (i)  In  Judg.  vi.  19  Gideon  "made  ready  a  kid"  and 
put  some  broth  in  a  pot  and  brought  them  out  to  the  angel.  They 
were  then  put  on  a  rock  and  consumed  by  flames.  Had  Gideon  al- 
ready sacrificed  the  kid  and  the  animal  from  which  the  broth  was 
made  when  he  killed  them?  And  at  an  altar?  And  did  that  sac- 
rifice also  make  the  place  holy  till  the  time  of  Josiah?  I  would 
also  remind  you  that  in  the  preceding  letter  you  said  that  it  was 
impossible  to  adduce  direct  evidence  to  show  that  all  slaughter  was 
sacrificial  till  Josiah's  time.  I  respectfully  submit  that  it  is  possi- 
ble to  adduce  direct  evidence  that  it  was  not. 

I  regret  to  say  that  I  entirely  failed  to  get  any  answer  to 
these  questions ;  and  I  hope  that  those  of  my  readers  who 
may  know  higher  critics  will  persistently  put  to  them  these 
and  other  questions  until  satisfactory  answers  are  given  to 
the  public.  The  critics  are  fond  of  claiming  that  all 
thoughtful  and  unprejudiced  men  accept  their  theory.^    Surely 

1  See,  for  example,  Dr.  C.  F.  Burney  in  the  Journal  of  Theolog- 
ical Studies,  April,  1908,  p.  321.  "This  latter  hypothesis  [i.e.  the 
Graf-Wellhausen  theory],  with  the  reconstruction  which  it  involves 
of  our  view  of  the  development  of  Israel's  religion  after  b.c.  750, 
may  now  be  regarded  as  proved  up  to  the  hilt  for  any  thinking  and 
unprejudiced  man  who  is  capable  of  estimating  the  character  and 
value  of  the  evidence." 


Wellhausens  Prolegomena.  177 

those  to  whom,  on  their  own  showing,  Providence  has  given 
a  monopoly  of  thoughtf illness  and  freedom  from  prejudice 
cannot  refuse  to  answer  the  reasonable  interrogatories  of  less 
favored  mortals. 

It  is  proper  to  note  that  Wellhausen  makes  this  blunder 
at  the  very  outset  of  his  inquiry.  He  writes  of  the  days  of 
Saul :  "...  to  sacrifice  anywhere  —  or  to  slaughter  any- 
where; for  originally  the  two  words  are  absolutely  synony- 
mous."^    Similarly  (on  p.  50)  he  writes  of  Leviticus  xvii. : — 

"  The  intention  of  this  prescription  is  simply  and  solely  to  se- 
cure the  exclusive  legitimation  of  the  one  lawful  place  of  sacrifice; 
it  is  only  for  this,  obviously,  that  the  profane  slaughtering  out- 
side of  Jerusalem,  which  Deuteronomy  had  permitted,  is  forbidden. 
Plainly  the  common  man  did  not  quite  understand  the  newly 
drawn  and  previously  quite  unknown  distinction  between  the  re- 
ligious and  the  profane  act,  and  when  he  slaughtered  at  home  (as 
he  was  entitled  to  do),  he  in  doing  so  still  observed,  half  uncon- 
sciously perhaps,  the  old  sacred  sacrificial  ritual." 

Immediately  afterwards  he  argues  that  Leviticus  xvii.  must 
be  exilic  at  the  earliest.  "  Newly  drawn  and  previously  quite 
unknown  distinction  "  is  therefore,  in  view  of  the  passages 
cited  above,  entirely  typical  of  Wellhausen's  dogmatic,  un- 
historical  methods.  And  on  the  next  page,  in  dealing  with 
Leviticus  vii.  22-27,  he  writes :  ''  Here  accordingly  is  another 
instance  of  what  we  have  already  so  often  observed:  what 
is  brought  forward  in  Deuteronomy  as  an  innovation  is  as- 
sumed in  the  Priestly  Code  to  be  an  ancient  custom  dating 
as  far  back  as  Noah.  And  therefore  the  latter  code  is  a 
growth  of  the  soil  that  has  been  prepared  by  means  of  the 
former."  -     Again,  on  page  63  we  read,  "  In  this  way,  not 

'  Prolegomena,  p.  18.  The  references  are  to  the  English  transla- 
tion throughout. 

=  So,  too,  W.  R.  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites  (2d  Ed.),  p.  241, 
etc.  The  whole  Wellhausen  literature  is  honeycombed  with  this 
theory. 


178  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

by  any  means  every  meal  indeed,  but  every  slaughtering, 
came  to  be  a  sacrifice."  On  page  71  we  are  told  that  "  accord- 
ing to  the  praxis  of  the  older  period  a  meal  was  almost  always 
connected  with  a  sacrifice  .  .  .  there  was  no  offering  without 
a  meal,  and  no  meal  without  an  offering."  And  when  he  has 
dilated  sufficiently  on  this  theme  Wellhausen  proceeds  (on 
the  next  page)  to  contrast  the  data  of  P:  "  Slaying  and  sac- 
rificing are  no  longer  coincident,"  and  so  on.  On  pages  77  f. 
we  meet  with  some  wonderful  reasoning  on  the  (supposed) 
course  of  development: — 

"  Human  life  [we  are  solemnly  told]  has  its  root  in  local  environ- 
ment, and  so  also  had  the  ancient  cultus ;  in  being  transplanted  from 
its  natural  soil  it  was  deprived  of  its  natural  nourishment.  A  sep- 
aration between  it  and  the  daily  life  was  inevitable,  and  Deuter- 
onomy itself  paved  the  way  for  this  result  by  permitting  profane 
slaughtering.  A  man  lived  in  Hebron,  but  sacrificed  in  Jerusalem ; 
life  and  worship  fell  apart.  The  consequences  which  lie  dormant 
in  the  Deuteronom'c  law  are  fully  developed  in  the  Priestly  Code. 

"  This  is  the  reason  why  the  sacrifice  combined  with  a  meal, 
formerly  by  far  the  chief,  now  falls  completely  into  the  background. 
One  could  eat  flesh  at  home,  but  in  Jerusalem  one's  business  was 
to  do  worship." 

Assuredly  it  is  not  wonderful  that  a  disciple  of  his  hesitates 
to  answer  my  questions.^ 

^  In  1  Samuel  viii.  13  the  word  translated  "  cooks "  really  means 
"slaughterers."  H.  P.  Smith  {ad  loc.)  writes  in  explanation,  "The 
cook  is  also  the  butcher."  It  is  also  clear  that  the  slaying  of  oxen 
and  the  killing  of  sheep  in  Isaiah  xxii.  13  is  purely  non-sacrificial. 

R.  Kittel  (vStudien  zur  Hebraischen  Archaologie  und  Religions- 
geschichte  (1908),  p.  103;  clearly  recognizes  that  there  was  noth- 
ing sacrificial  in  Gideon's  killing  of  the  kid.  But  his  discussion  of 
the  subject  is  vitiated  by  his  not  having  recognized  the  other  ma- 
terial passages  (pp.  108-110).  Indeed,  the  whole  of  Kittel's  essay 
is  rendered  of  small  value  for  the  biblical  student  by  his  neglect  to 
collect  the  available  Old  Testament  evidence,  by  an  exegesis  that 
reads  into  the  texts  whatsoever  it  desires  to  find,  and  by  confused 
find  improbable  theories.  The  latest  monograph  on  the  places  of 
sacrifice  in  the  Pentateuchal  laws  *(W.  Engelkemper,  Heiligtum 
und  Opferstatten  in  den  Gesetzen  des  Pentateuch  (1908))  also  fails 
to  recognize  the  historical   instances  of   non-sacrificial   slaughter. 


I'Vcllhausens  Prolegomena.  179 

The  great  bulk  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Wellhausen's 
Prolegomena  rests  on  two  great  confusions,  supplemented  by 
numerous  minor  confusions  and  blunders.  Perhaps  the  most 
important  of  the  minor  blunders  is  one  I  have  already  refuted 
—  the  notion  that  slaughter  and  sacrifice  were  identical  before 
the  reign  of  Josiah.  The  great  confusions  are:  (1)  the  confu- 
sion about  sanctuaries;  and  (2)  the  confusion  induced  by  the 
inability  to  distinguish  between  substantive  law  and  procedure. 
I  shall  deal  with  these  two  in  the  order  named.  I  have  written 
of  '*  sanctuaries  ''  before ;  but,  owing  to  the  great  importance  of 
the  matter  to  the  Wellhausen  case,  it  is  necessary  that  I  should 
treat  of  the  point  again,  for  it  is  of  this  chapter  that  Well- 
hausen writes :  "  I  differ  from  Graf  chiefly  in  this,  that  I 
always  go  back  to  the  centralisation  of  the  cultus,  and  deduce 
from  it  the  particular  divergences.  My  whole  position  is 
contained  in  my  first  chapter."     (Prolegomena,  p.  368.) 

That  first  chapter  has  been  rendered  possible  by  two  con- 
ditions:  (1)  his  habitual  neglect  to  collate  the  whole  of  the 
relevant  evidence  of  any  document  (of  which  we  shall  see 
numerous  instances)  ;  and  (2)  the  mental  confusion  in  which 
he  involved  himself  by  gratuitously  calling  various  places  and 
objects  "  sanctuaries."  Although  these  matters  are  rather 
technical,  I  believe  it  to  be  possible  to  put  them  so  that  any 
man  of  ordinary  intelligence  who  has  had  no  special  training 
shall  be  able  to  follow  the  argument  and  see  what  incredible 
blunders  have  been  made. 

The  ancient  Hebrews  had  a  custom  whereby  any  layman 
could  in  certain  circumstances  offer  sacrifice.  For  this  pur- 
pose he  used  a  simple  kind  of  altar,  consisting  either  of  one 
or  more  stones  or  of  a  mound  of  earth.  Such  altars  could  be 
made  at  a  moment's  notice,  and  were  in  fact  frequently  used 
for   single   occasions   only.      On   the   other   hand,   sometimes 


180  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

(at  any  rate  in  the  post-Mosaic  age)  the  altar  might  be  in- 
tended for  regular  use.  A  ready  parallel  is  provided  by  the 
Arabs  of  whom  Mr.  Addis  writes :  "  To  the  Arabs  any  stone 
might  become  for  the  nonce  an  altar,  and  evidently  their 
Hebrew  kinsfolk  followed  originally  the  same  ancient  way." 
(Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  col.  123.)  The  words  "for  the 
nonce  "  are  important.  These  stones  were  distinguished  from 
what  we  should  call  a  sanctuary  by  two  characteristics  at  least. 
The  term  sanctuary  implies:  (1)  some  measure  of  perma- 
nence, and  (2)  some  measure  of  peculiar  holiness.  Both 
these  characteristics  are  obviously  lacking  in  stones  that  could 
be  used  "  for  the  nonce  " ;  though,  as  we  shall  see,  the  element 
of  permanence  was  not  always  lacking  to  altars  of  this  type 
among  the  Hebrews. 

Moses  found  this  custom  in  existence.  He  made  no  effort 
to  disturb  it.  On  the  contrary  he  practised  it  himself.  But 
such  a  custom  could  easily  lend  itself  to  idolatry  or  apostacy. 
Accordingly  he  regulated  it.  We  have  two  passages  in  which 
he  does  this  —  Exodus  xx.  24-26  and  Deuteronomy  xvi.  21  f. 
Of  these  two  passages  only  one  (Ex.  xx.)  has  been  discovered 
by  Wellhausen.  The  other  is  left  out  of  his  discussion.  These 
passages  contain  certain  provisions  with  which  we  need  not 
now  deal  —  provisions  prohibiting  heathen  accessories.  But 
other  points  are  of  immediate  importance  for  our  purpose.  To 
begin  with,  we  must  speak  of  the  materials.  Earth  and  un- 
hewn stone  only  are  allowed.  Steps  are  prohibited  for  a 
reason  that  applied  only  to  laymen,  and  not  to  the  priests,  who 
were  differently  garbed.^  We  shall  have  to  consider  here- 
after the  sacrifices  that  might  be  offered  on  such  altars ;  but 

*  Contrast  Exodus  xx.  26  with  xxviii.  42  f.  Ezekiel,  at  any  rate, 
had  no  objection  to  the  priests'  approaching  their  altar  by  steps 
(xliii.  17),  and  in  this  he  may  possibly  have  followed  Solomon. 


Wellhausen's  Prolegomena.  181 

for  the  moment  I  want  to  urge  on  my  readers  the  importance 
of  z'isiialimng  them.  Everybody  has  seen  a  large  stone,  and 
also  mounds  of  earth  and  unhewn  stones ;  and  nobody  can 
have  the  sHghtest  difficulty  in  picturing  such  things  to  himself. 
If  now  we  turn  to  the  historical  instances,  we  shall  see  these 
stones  and  mounds.  I  recall  such  instances  as  Manoah's  rock, 
Elijah's  altar  on  Carmel,  Saul's  stone  after  Michmash,  Naa- 
man's  earth,  and  so  on.  Once  this  is  clearly  realized,  it  be- 
comes possible  to  distinguish  these  lay  altars  from  two  other 
objects.  On  the  one  hand,  no  eye-witness  could  mistake  such 
an  altar  for  a  house :  on  the  other  hand,  he  could  not  confuse 
it  with  such  an  altar  as  the  great  altar  of  burnt-offering.  That 
a  stone  or  mound  is  not  a  house  is  a  matter  that  need  not  be 
labored.  I  proceed  therefore  to  draw  attention  to  the  altar  of 
burnt-offering.  Turning  to  the  command  in  Exodus  xxvii., 
we  see  the  contrasts  at  once. 

1.  The  altar  of  earth  or  unhewn  stones  (which  for  the 
future  we  may  conveniently  refer  to  as  a  "  lay  altar  ")  must 
have  been  of  indeterminate  shape  and  varying  dimensions, 
while  this  altar  is  "  foursquare  "  and  has  defined  dimensions. 

2.  Owing  to  the  nature  of  its  materials,  a  lay  altar  could 
have  no  horns.  As  against  this  we  read,  "And  thou  shalt 
make  the  horns  of  it  upon  the  four  corners  thereof :  the  horns 
thereof  shall  be  of  one  piece  with  it." 

3.  The  altar  of  burnt-offering  is  not  made  of  earth  or  stone, 
but  of  wood  and  metal. 

4.  The  altar  of  burnt-offering  has  a  grating  and  ledge. 

5.  It  is  served  by  priests,  in  striking  contrast  to  the  lay 
altar. 

This  does  not  exhaust  the  differences  that  might  be  gather- 
ed from  the  history :  but  it  is  sufficient  for  our  present  pur- 
pose.   Side  by  side  with  the  lay  altar  there  obviously  exists  in 


182  Essays  in  PentatcucJial  Criticism. 

the  Bible  another  form  of  altar.  One  of  its  most  striking 
differences  suggests  to  us  the  name  '*  horned  altar "  for 
altars  of  this  type.  If  my  readers  will  visualize  this  as  well 
as  the  lay  altar,  they  will  have  no  difficulty  in  following  the 
discussion.  They  can  obtain  valuable  assistance  for  this  pur- 
pose by  referring  to  the  illustrations  on  page  31  of  Murray's 
"  Illustrated  Bible  Dictionary."  ^ 

Where  were  horned  altars  used?  The  answer  appears  to 
be,  '*At  legitimate  or  illegitimate  houses  of  God  " ;  and  in 
the  term  "  house  of  God  "  I  include  the  abiding-place  of  the 
Ark,  before  the  erection  of  the  Temple.  This  latter  point  is 
proved  by  two  passages:  1  Kings  i.  50  f.,  where  we  read  of 
Adonijah's  laying  hold  of  the  horns  of  the  altar;  and  1  Kings 
ii.  28  ff.,  where  Joab  flees  to  the  Tent  of  the  Lord,  and  catches 
hold  of  the  horns  of  the  altar.  In  neither  case  can  the  refer- 
ence be  to  a  lay  altar,  which  could  not  have  horns  since  it  would 
be  impossible  to  fashion  them  of  earth  or  unhewn  stone.  As 
to  other  places  of  worship,  Amos  says  (iii.  14)  :  ''  For  in  the 
day  that  I  shall  visit  the  transgressions  of  Israel  upon  him, 
I  will  also  visit  the  altars  of  Bethel,  and  tlie  horns  of  the  altar 
shall  he  cut  off,  and  fall  to  the  ground."  "A  house  of  the 
Lord,"  then,  is  not  merely  not  a  lay  altar:  it  is  not  even  an 
appendage  of  a  lay  altar.  An  altar  it  had,  but  an  altar  of  an 
entirely  different  type  —  a  horned  altar.  And  such  an  altar 
existed  before  the  Ark  —  at  any  rate  as  far  back  as  the  days 
of  David  and  Solomon.^ 

^  Both  these  types  must  be  distinguished  from  the  pre-Israelitish 
high  places  that  have  recently  been  investigated.  It  is  foolish  to 
say,  as  is  sometimes  done,  "All  altars  were  very  much  alike,"  and 
then  to  exhibit  an  elaborate  picture  of  a  Canaanitish  high  place 
to  illustrate  the  law  under  which  Saul  after  Michmash  used  a 
large  stone  as  an  altar.  Such  reasoning  threatens  us  with  new 
confusions  based  on  undigested  archaeological  data. 

^  From  1  Kings  viii.  64  it  appears  that  the  temple  altar  was  made 
of  bronze. 


Wellhansen's  Prolegomena.  183 


Having  now  made  it  clear  that  a  lay  altar  is  not  identical 
either  with  a  house  or  with  a  horned  altar,  I  turn  to  J  and  E 
to  examine  their  data. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Exodus  xx.  recognizes  lay  altars. 
The  legislation  of  J,  however,  also  recognizes  a  "  house  of 
the  Lord''  (Ex.  xxiii.  19;  xxxiv.  26):  "The  first  of  the 
bikkurim  of  thy  ground  thou  shalt  bring  to  the  House  of  the 
Lord."  This,  then,  is  not  a  lay  altar.  It  is,  however,  a  place 
of  great  importance  in  the  worship.  In  Exodus  xxxiv.  22 
we  find:  ''And  thou  shalt  observe  the  feast  of  weeks,  of  the 
bikkurim  of  wheat  harvest,  and  the  feast  of  ingathering  at 
the  year's  end."  If  the  bikkurim  were  to  be  brought  to  the 
house  of  the  Lord,  where  must  the  peasant  have  been  on  the 
feast  of  the  bikkurim  f  Clearly  at  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and 
not  at  a  lay  altar.  It  follows  that  this  feast  is  intended  to  be 
celebrated  at  the  house.  But  the  same  legislation  links  with 
this  feast  of  bikkurim  two  other  feasts  —  the  feast  of  ingather- 
ing and  Passover :  ''  Three  times  in  the  year  shall  all  thy 
males  appear  before  the  Lord  God^  the  God  of  Israel"  (Ex. 
xxxiv.  23).  Now  if  on  one  of  these  three  occasions  the  ap- 
pearance consisted  of  a  visit  to  the  "  House,"  it  follows  of 
necessity  that  a  similar  act  was  necessary  on  the  other  two  oc- 
casions. These  pilgrimages  to  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  not 
to  lay  altars,  are  firmly  established  in  the  earliest  legislation. 

Precisely  the  same  tale  is  told  by  the  narrative  of  J.  In 
Joshua  ix.  23  we  read  of  "  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of 
water  for  the  House  of  my  God/'  What  does  that  mean? 
What  could  it  mean  to  a  Judaean,  such  as  J  is  alleged  to  have 
been,  but  the  seat  of  the  Ark?  And  in  verse  27  when  we 
remove  the  phrases  that  the  Wellhausenites  assign  to  other 
writers,  we  read  that  "  Joshua  made  them  that  day  hewers 
of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for  the  altar  of    the  Lord." 


184  Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 

Observe  the  altar,  not  the  altars.  A  single  definite  altar  is 
here  referred  to.  Was  it  a  lay  altar?  Can  the  answer  be 
doubtful  ? 

I  return  to  one  other  passage  in  the  legislation  (Ex.  xxi. 
14)  :  "  From  mine  altar  shalt  thou  take  him,  that  he  may 
die."  What  is  here  meant  is  clearly  shown  by  the  passage  in 
Kings.  The  altar  referred  to  cannot  be  a  lay  altar  like  the 
Michmash  stone  or  Naaman's  earth.  It  can  only  be  a  horned 
altar.^  Thus  it  appears  that  J  and  E  recognize  a  plurality  of 
lay  altars  and  also  a  single  house  with  a  horned  altar. 

Wellhausen  in  his  famous  chapter  on  "  The  Place  of  Wor- 
ship "  professes  to  discuss  the  evidence  of  J  (pp.  29-32).  He 
has  not  detected  Exodus  xxiii.  or  xxxiv.  or  Joshua  ix.  His  dis- 
cussion proceeds  on  the  footing  that  Exodus  xx.  is  the  only 
legal  passage  material,  and  that  some  of  the  notices  of  the  lay 
altars  contained  in  the  narrative  are  J's  only  historical  data. 
I  have  often  asked  partisans  of  Wellhausen  if  they  can  show 
me  any  references  to  these  passages  in  his  discussion,  but  I 
never  can  get  an  answer.  Perhaps  some  of  my  readers  may 
be  more  fortunate. 

I  cannot  pass  by  in  silence  another  blunder  of  his  in  the 

interpretation  of  Exodus   xx.   24.     He  translates   "  in  every 

^  It  is  necessary  to  notice  the  mistranslation  of  Exodus  xxii.  29 
(30),  which  should  run  "on  the  eighth  day  thou  mayest  give  it  me." 
Similarly  Deuteronomy  xxii.  7  isl  not  a  command  but  a  permission  to 
bird's  nest,  and  Exodus  xiii.  13  contains  not  a  command  but  a  per- 
mission to  redeem  asses,  as  is  proved  by  the  next  words.  (See  A. 
Van  Hoonacker,  Le  lieu  du  culte,  pp.  9-10.)  Mistranslations  are 
often  useful  to  the  higher  critics.  In  this  case  they  argue  for  lo- 
cal "  sanctuaries "  (!)  on  the  strength  of  their  rendering.  Well- 
hausen argues  that  Passover  "  cannot  have  been  known  at  all  to 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  for  there  (Exod.  xxii.  29,  30)  the  com- 
mand is  to  leave  the  firstling  seven  days  with  its  dam  and  on  the 
eighth  day  to  give  it  to  the  Lord!  "  (Prolegomena,  p.  93.)  Here,  as 
elsewhere,  I  substitute  "  the  Lord  "  for  Wellhausen's  translitera- 
tion  of  the  Tetragrammaton. 


Wellhausens  Prolegomena.  185 

place  where  I  cause  my  name  to  be  honoured,"  and  interprets 
this  by  saying :  "  But  this  means  nothing  more  than  that  the 
spots  where  intercourse  between  earth  and  heaven  took  place 
were  not  willingly  regarded  as  arbitrarily  chosen,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  were  considered  as  having  been  somehow  or  other 
selected  by  the  Deity  Himself  for  His  service"  (p.  30). 
Similarly,  in  dealing  with  the  patriarchal  altars,  he  writes: 
"All  the  more  as  the  altars,  as  a  rule,  are  not  built  by  the 
patriarchs  according  to  their  own  private  judgment  where- 
soever they  please;  on  the  contrary,  a  theophany  calls  atten- 
tion to,  or  at  least  afterwards  confirms,  the  holiness  of  the 
place"  (p.  31).  This  has  been  very  generally  followed  by 
the  critics.  T  will  quote  only  one  instance.  Professor  A.  R. 
S.  Kennedy  writes  on  page  81  of  IJastings's  second  Dictionary 
of  the  Bible:  "As  regards,  first  of  all,  the  place  of  sacrifice, 
every  village  appears  to  have  had  its  sanctuary  or  '  high 
place '  with  its  altar  and  other  appurtenances  of  the  cult.  .  .  . 
Not  that  sacrifice  could  be  ofitered  at  any  spot  the  worshipper 
might  choose;  it  must  be  one  hallowed  by  the  tradition  of  a 
theophany :   '  in  every  place,  etc'  " 

This  might  be  a  permissible  explanation  if  we  had  no  his- 
torical data  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the  law;  but,  in  view 
of  our  actual  knowledge,  it  affords  only  one  more  example  of 
Wellhausen's  neglect  to  examine  the  facts.  For  instance, 
Saul  erects  an  altar  after  Michmash,  but  no  theophany  can 
be  suggested.  Similarly  with  Samuel's  altar  at  Ramah, 
Adonijah's  sacrifice  at  Enrogel,  Naaman's  earth,  etc.  More- 
over, if  all  slaughter  was  sacrificial,  there  must  have  been 
innumerable  altars  "up  and  down  the  country.  Can  it  really 
be  suggested  that  theophanies  are  to  be  postulated  in  the  case 
of  the  cattle  thieves  (Ex.  xxi.  37  (xxii.  1)),  or  in  Genesis 
xxvii.  14,  or  in  the  other  passages  we  have  examined  ? . 


186  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

Again,  in  1  Samuel  xx.  6,  29  we  read  of  David's  putting 
forward  a  clan  sacrifice  as  a  plausible  excuse.  To  have  been 
plausible  it  must  have  been  not  exceptional  but  in  accordance 
with  a  universal  custom.  Not  merely  David's  clan  but  every 
other  clan  in  the  country  must  have  had  such  sacrifices.  But 
sacrifice  implies  an  altar  —  according  to  Wellhausen  a  theo- 
phany.  Did  every  Israelitish  householder  have  a  theophany 
in  his  back  garden? 

The  same  holds  good  of  earlier  times.  When  men  began 
to  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  (Gen.  iv.  26),  did  they  do 
so  altogether  without  sacrifice?  Or  did  they  enjoy  innumer- 
able theophanies?  When  Abram  built  an  altar  near  Bethel 
(Gen.  xii.  8),  is  a  theophany  suggested?  Or  at  Mamre  (xiii. 
18)  ?  Or  in  the  case  of  Jacob's  sacrifice  in  Gen.  xxxi.  54?  Or 
at  Shechem  (xxxiii.  20)  ? 

The  fact  is  that  there  are  only  two  possibilities  with  regard 
to  Exodus  XX.  Either  we  must  translate  the  Hebrew,  literal- 
ly and  correctly,  "  in  all  the  place,"  understanding  the  refer- 
ence to  be  to  the  territory  of  Israel  for  the  time  being  (i.e. 
first  the  camp  and  its  environment,  subsequently  the  national 
possessions  in  Canaan)  ;  or  else,  if  we  insist  on  translating 
"  in  every  place,"  we  must  adopt  the  Syriac  reading  "  where 
thou  shalt  cause  my  name  to  be  remembered."  In  any  case 
the  R.  V.  rendering  is  impossible.  Personally  I  prefer  the 
former  alternative.^ 

I  turn  from  Wellhausen's  account  of  the  early  law  to  his 
account  of  the  early  history.  At  the  beginning  of  his  first 
chapter  he  writes  as  follows: — 

"  For  the  earliest  period  of  the  history  of  Israel,  all  that  precedes 
the  building  of  the  temple,  not  a  trace  can  be  found  of  any  sanctu- 
ary of  exclusive  legitimacy.  In  the  Books  of  Judges  and  Samuel 
hardly  a  place  is  mentioned  at  which  we  have  not  at  least  casual 

^  See  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  January,  1908,  p.  115,  note. 


Wellhaitseris  Prolegomena.  187 


Vb 


mention  of  an  altar  and  of  sacrifice.  In  great  measure  this  multi- 
plicity of  sanctuaries  was  part  of  the  heritage  taken  over  from  the 
Canaanites  by  the  Hebrews;  as  they  appropriated  the  towns  and 
the  culture  generally  of  the  previous  inhabitants,  so  also  did  they 
take  possession  of  their  sacred  places.  ...  In  Gilgal  and  Shiloh,  in 
the  fixed  camps  where,  in  the  first  instance,  they  had  found  a  per- 
manent foothold  in  Palestine  proper,  there  forthwith  arose  impor- 
tant centres  of  worship;  so  likewise  in  other  places  of  political 
importance,  even  in  such  as  only  temporarily  came  into  prominence, 
as  Ophrah,  Ramah,  and  Nob  near  Gibeah.  And,  apart  from  the 
greater  cities  with  their  more  or  less  regular  religious  service,  it 
is  perfectly  permissible  to  erect  an  altar  extempore,  and  offer  sac- 
rifice whenever  an  occasion  presents  itself"    (pp.  17,  18). 

The  first  thing  to  notice  is  the  hopeless  mental  confusion 

induced  by  the  word  "  sanctuary."     A  place  where  there  is 

casual  mention  of  a  lay  altar  and  a  lay  sacrifice  is  regarded 

as  a  "  sanctuary  " ;    and  when  it  has  been  estabHshed  that  a 

multiplicity  of  lay  altars  were  in  use,  the  leap  is  made  to  a 

multiplicity  of  sanctuaries. ^    A  second  result  of  this  confusion 

(and  it  is  a  very  important  one  indeed)   is  that  Shiloh  and 

afterwards    Nob    are    lumped    together    with    extempore    lay 

altars.    At  Shiloh  (subsequently  at  Nob)  there  was  something 

which  could  be  called  a  house  or  temple,  served  by  a  regular 

^  I  have  repeatedly  pointed  out  that  the  confusion  engendered  by 
the  word  "  sanctuary "  reaches  its  climax  in  the  writings  of  such 
authors  as  Driver  and  Robertson  Smith.  The  latter  writes :  "  The 
local  sanctuaries  were  the  seat  of  judgment,  and  so  in  the  lan- 
guage of  S  [so  he  designates  this  "source"]  to  bring  a  man  be- 
fore the  magistrates  is  to  bring  him  'to  God'  (Exod.  xxi.  6;  xxii. 
8,  9,  Heb.)"  (Additional  Answer  to  the  Libel,  p.  74.)  It  is  well 
known  that  "  the  seat  of  judgment "  was  the  gate  of  the  city,  not 
a  lay  altar:  and  it  is  tolerably  obvious  that  the  door  or  doorpost 
presupposed  by  Exodus  xxi.  is  lacking  to  a  stone  or  mound,  al- 
beit present  in  a  gate.  The  stoutest  opponents  of  the  higher  crit- 
ics would  have  thought  it  impossible  that  they  should  be  so  hope- 
lessly incompetent  as  to  be  unable  to  distinguish  between  a  mound 
and  a  house,  and  that  merely  because  they  had  called  both  these 
objects  "  sanctuaries " ;  but,  unfortunately,  the  facts  admit  of  no 
doubt.  It  is  never  wise  in  matters  legal  or  historical  to  call  a 
spade  a  sanctified  excavatory  implement. 


188  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

priesthood ;  and  these  instances,  therefore,  bear  not  the 
slightest  resemblance  to  the  altars  which  any  layman  was  free 
to  erect  and  use  for  the  sacrificial  worship  sanctioned  by  the 
custom  of  Israel.  We  have  seen  that  the  law  and  history  of 
J  and  E  recognize  a  house  of  the  Lord  with  a  horned  altar 
side  by  side  with  a  plurality  of  lay  altars.  We  shall  see  that 
the  same  is  the  case  with  the  history  before  the  erection  of 
Solomon's  temple.  The  confusion  induced  by  the  word  "  sanc- 
tuary "  has  prevented  Wellhausen  from  realizing  this. 

The  second  point  to  notice  is  that  this  passage  —  and  in- 
deed the  whole  chapter  —  is  based,  as  usual  with  Wellhausen, 
on  an  incomplete  collection  of  evidence.  He  speaks  of  "  all 
that  precedes  the  building  of  the  temple."  Let  us  see  what 
we  can  find. 

There  certainly  is  a  plurality  of  lay  altars.  But  side  by  side 
with  them  we  find  something  else.  As  already  pointed  out, 
the  first  two  chapters  of  Kings  introduce  us  to  a  tent  of  the 
Lord  with  a  horned  altar.  Wellhausen  of  course  takes  no 
notice  of  these  passages  for  the  purpose  of  his  discussion.  To 
those  who  have  followed  the  preceding  argument,  it  will  be 
absolutely  clear  that  no  contemporary  could  for  one  moment 
have  confused  these  with  lay  altars.  This  tent  dated  from 
David  (2  Sam.  vi.  17).  For  that  period,  therefore,  we  have 
a  "  house  "  side  by  side  with  the  lay  altars.  The  tact  that  it 
was  of  a  professedly  temporary  nature  cannot  in  any  wise 
alter  its  essential  character.  Going  back,  we  find  in  1  Samuel 
xxi.  that  there  was  at  Nob  a  priestly  establishment.  At  first 
sight  it  would  appear  that  this  does  not  help  us  very  much; 
but  more  careful  consideration  of  the  narrative  proves  that 
there  must  have  been  something  in  the  nature  of  a  house 
where  the  shewbread  was  kept  (to  say  nothing  of  the  ephod 
and  spear),  for  shewbread  has  nothing  to  do  with  a  lay  altar, 


W ellhausen' s  Prolegomena. 


189 


nor  could  the  expression  ''  from  before  the  Lord  "  (  ver.  7(6)) 
here  apply  to  such  an  erection.  The  other  data  for  this  period 
are  indecisive  except  in  the  case  of  Shiloh.  It  will  be  well  to 
set  out  Wellhausen's  remarks  on  this  subject  in  parallel 
columns. 


Page  129. 
An  independent  and  influen- 
tial priesthood  could  develop  it- 
self only  at  the  larger  and  more 
public  centres  of  worship,  hut 
that  of  Shiloh  seems  to  have 
been  the  only  one  of  this  class. 
[My  italics.  H.  M.  W.]  The 
remaining  houses  of  God,  of 
which  we  hear  some  word  from 
the  transition  period  which  pre- 
ceded the  monarchy,  are  not  of 
importance,  and  are  in  private 
hands,  thus  corresponding  to 
that  of  Micah  on  Mount  Eph- 
raim. 


Page  19. 
Toward  the  close  of  the  period 
of  the  Judges,  Shiloh  appears  to 
have  acquired  an  importance 
that  perhaps  extended  even  be- 
yond the  limits  of  the  tribe  of 
Joseph.  By  a  later  age  tlie  tem- 
ple there  was  even  regarded  as 
the  prototype  of  the  temjple  of 
Solomon,  that  is,  as  the  one  le- 
gitimate place  of  worship  to 
which  the  Lord^  had  made  a 
grant  of  all  the  burat-offerings 
of  the  children  of  Israel  (Jer. 
vii.  12;  1  Sam.  ii.  27-36).  But, 
in  point  of  fact,  if  a  prosperous 
man  of  Ephraim  or  Benjamin 
made  a  pilgrimage  to  the  joy- 
ful festival  at  Shiloh  at  Ihe  turn 
of  the  year,  the  reason  for  his 
doing  so  was  not  that  he  could 
have  had  no  opportunity  at  his 
home  in  Ramah  or  Gibeah  for 
eating  and  drinking  before  the 
Lord.  Any  strict  centralization 
is  for  that  period  inconceivable, 
alike  in  the  religious  as  in  every 
other  sphere.  This  is  seen  even 
in  the  circumstance  that  the  de- 
struction of  the  temple  of  Shi- 
loh, the  priesthood  of  which  we 
find  officiating  at  Nob  a  little  la- 
ter, did  not  exercise  the  small- 
est modifying  influence  upon  the 
character  and  position  of  the 
cultus;  Shiloh  disappears  quiet- 
ly from  the  scene,  and  is  not 
mentioned  again  until  we  learn 
from  Jeremiah  that  at  least  from 
the  time  when  Solomon's  tem- 
ple was  founded  its  temple  lay 
in  ruins. 

^In  accordance  with  my  usual  custom  I   substitute  this  for  the 
transliteration  of  the  Tetragrammaton. 


190  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Wellhausen  in  the  second  extract  admits 
the  exceptional  position  of  Shiloh.^  What  he  means  by  his 
argument  about  its  destruction  not  modifying  the  cultus  I  do 
not  know.  Our  information  as  to  this  period  is  quite  frag- 
mentary, and  all  we  can  say  is  that  after  the  destruction  of 
Shiloh  the  priesthood  formed  a  religious  center  at  Nob;  but 
whether  this  attained  to  the  same  position  as  Shiloh  it  is  im- 
possible to  say.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  period  was 
one  of  great  national  calamity  and  disorganization;  and  the 
Law  itself  expressly  recognizes  secure  peace  as  a  condition 
precedent  of  regular  religious  pilgrimages  (Ex.  xxxiv.  24;  cp. 
Deut.  xii.  9).  That  the  PhiHstine  wars  broke  in  on  the  previ- 
ous practice  is  reasonably  clear;  and  it  is  probable  that  relig- 
ious centralization  did  not  recover  the  ground  lost  at  that  time 
till  the  Ark  was  lodged  at  Jerusalem.  In  any  case  our  survey 
teaches  us  that  early  history  as  well  as  the  law  recognizes  a 
house  of  the  Lord  served  by  a  hereditary  priesthood  which  in 
normal  peace  times  attracted  pilgrims  and  held  a  position  fun- 
damentally different  from  that  of  the  lay  altars.'^ 

One  other  point  requires  notice.  We  find  the  word  bamah 
("high  place")  in  1  Samuel  ix.  12-25  and  x.  5,  13;  and  it 
is  sometimes  inferred  that  this  was  contrary  to  the  Law.  But 
this  is  not  so.  A  lay  altar  would  not  become  unlawful  unless 
it  had  some  unlawful  accessory  (such  as  steps  or  an  Asherah) 
or  were  used  for  some  unlawful  purpose.  The  mere  name 
could   not  make   it   other  than   lawful.      Indeed   there   is   no 

^On  pages  131  f.  he  speaks  of  the  establishment  at  Shiloh,  and 
subsequently  at  Nob,  as  "  the  solitary  instance  of  an  independent 
and  considerable  priesthood  to  be  met  with  in  the  old  history  of 
Israel." 

''Gideon's  ephod  is  expressly  condemned  in  the  narrative  of 
Judges,  so  that  no  argument  can  be  based  on  this  passage.  Micah's 
image  (Jud.  xvii.  f.)  was  kept  in  his  own  house;  so  that  we  find  no 
"  house  of  God  "  there. 


Wellhaiisens  Prolegomena.  191 

reason  to  read  into  such  passages  the  associations  of  the 
bamoth  of  a  later  period  or  the  bamoth  of  the  Canaanites.  In 
the  days  of  Samuel  the  thing  itself  appears  to  have  been  en- 
tirely innocent  in  the  only  instances  with  which  we  meet.  The 
Law  raises  no  objection  to  the  zvord  bamah  (which  is  not  used 
in  Deut.  xii.,  though  it  appears  in  Lev.  and  Num.).  Of  the 
bamah  in  1  Samuel  x.  we  know  too  little,  but  chapter  ix.  gives 
us  sufficient  light.  The  sacrifice  was  accomplished  by  a  lay- 
man, called  the  "  cook  "  (literally  slaughterer),  without  priest- 
ly assistance.  Samuel  himself  was  not  present,  and  the  meal 
was  delayed  till  his  arrival,  not  that  he  might  perform  any 
priestly  rite,  but  that  he  might  "  bless  the  sacrifice."  A  ban- 
queting-room  was  attached,  but  there  are  no  signs  of  any 
heathen  accessories.  Nor  can  it  be  suggested  that  the  sac- 
rifice was  to  any  but  the  God  of  Israel,  or  that  Saul's  visit 
was  on  one  of  the  three  pilgrimage  festivals.  Doubtless  the 
altar  was  of  a  more  permanent  kind  than  that  at  Michmash; 
but,  provided  the  materials  and  form  were  lawful,  this  makes 
no  difference.  This  local  sacrifice  should  be  compared  with 
the  clan  sacrifices  already  noticed.  No  doubt  they  were  com- 
mon all  over  the  country.  It  must  be  remembered  that  Exodus 
XX.  leaves  the  fullest  latitude  for  customary  lay  sacrifice,  and 
makes  permanent  lay  altars  as  legal  as  those  of  a  more  tem- 
porary kind,  provided  that  they  conform  to  the  prescriptions 
of  the  law.  A  very  important  point  in  connection  with  this 
bamah  must  be  noticed  further.  We  know  from  all  our 
authorities  —  First  Samuel  not  less  than  the  Pentateuch  — 
that  in  sacrifices  performed  with  the  assistance  of  priests,  the 
burning  of  the  fat  was  a  specifically  priestly  function  (1  Sam. 
ii.  16).  Here  Samuel's  role  is  very  different  from  that  of  a 
priest.  He  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  burning  of  the  fat  or 
the  specifically  sacrificial  part  of  the  sacrifice,  but  merely  says 


193  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

grace.  This  shows  that  the  bamah  was  not  the  center  of  an 
illegal  priesthood,  but  a  place  of  lay  sacrifice.  As  such  it  was 
perfectly  lawful. 

The  writer  in  Kings  suggests  that  sacrifices  offered  at 
bamoth  before  the  erection  of  the  temple  were  barely  lawful 
(1  Kings  iii.  2-4).  Perhaps  this  means  that  he  had  before  him 
information  about  these  bamoth  which  showed  that  there  were 
unlawful  accessories  or  that  sacrifices  were  offered  there 
which  should  have  been  taken  to  the  religious  capital  in 
normal  times.  Thus  it  may  well  be  that  Solomon's  visit  to 
Gibeah  was  made  on  one  of  the  festivals.  Possibly,  however, 
the  comments  are  inspired  by  a  view  of  the  Law  which  was 
certainly  taken  in  a  later  age,  although  legal  science  makes  it 
certain  that  the  original  meaning  was  different.  Finding 
the  word  bamah,  the  writer  may  have  supposed  that  it  denoted 
a  high  place  with  idolatrous  adjuncts,  such  as  those  with 
which  we  often  meet,  or  (more  probably)  he  may  have  taken 
the  late  view  that  the  Law  prohibited  all  local  altars. 

Wellhausen  distinguishes  three  stages  in  the  law  and  the 
history  —  that  of  JE,  the  Deuteronomic,  and  that  of  P.  With 
the  first  we  have  now  dealt  and  we  have  found  that  law  and 
history  alike  recognize  one  lawful  House  of  the  Lord  and 
many  lay  altars.  Tt  will  be  found  that  precisely  the  same 
characteristics  reassert  themselves  in  the  second. 

Deuteronomy  demands  that  certain  offerings  shall  be 
brought  to  the  religious  capital  which  is  to  come  into  existence 
at  a  later  time.  But  it  also  recognizes  and  regulates  local 
altars  in  xvi.  21,  a  passage  of  which  Dr.  Driver  writes  {ad 
loc.)  :  *'As  Dillmann  observes,  it  presupposes  by  its  wording  the 
law  of  Ex.  XX.  24."  Similarly  Mr.  Carpenter  (ad  loc.)  admits 
that  this  law  ''  belongs  to  the  older  cultus  before  the  unity  of 
the   sanctuary  was   enforced   in   xii."    When   I   ask   a   Well- 


Wellhausen's  Proles^omena.  193 


hausenite  to  show  me  any  reference  to  this  important  verse 
in  the  Prolegomena  I  never  get  any  answer.  The  index  to 
Dr.  Hastings's  larger  Bible  Dictionary  may  also  be  consulted 
in  vain  for  any  sign  of  recognition  that  this  passage  exists. 
As  is  usual  with  the  critical  school,  the  whole  of  the  relevant 
material  has  not  been  collected.  This  passage,  too,  is  sup- 
ported by  the  work  of  the  *'  Deuteronomic  redactor "  in 
Joshua,  who  (viii.  30  ff.)  makes  Joshua  erect  a  lay  altar  of 
the  familiar  type.  Needless  to  say,  Wellhausen  never  dis- 
cusses this  passage  either.  It  is  so  easy  to  prove  any  theory  — 
if  only  the  facts  are  selected  judiciously. 

On  the  law,  however,  two  small  points  remain. 

1.  Deuteronomy  expressly  permits  non-sacrificial  slaughter. 
How  completely  Wellhausen's  eu^planation  breaks  down  in 
the  light  of  history  we  have  already  seen.  But  the  Mosaic 
authenticity  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  explains  the  pro- 
vision fully.  Non-sacrificial  slaughter  had  been  in  use  till 
the  time  when  Leviticus  xvii.  1-7  was  enacted,  for  the  reasons 
given  in  verses  5-7.  This  made  it  necessary  to  again  legalize 
non-sacrificial  slaughter  on  the  eve  of  the  entry  into  Canaan, 
save  for  persons  living  near  the  religious  capital  (Deut.  xii. 
21).^ 

2.  More  important  is  the  question  whether  there  is  any 
antinomy  between  the  provisions  of  Deuteronomy  and  those 
of  the  earlier  books.  We  have  seen  that  the  early  legis- 
lation recognizes  a  house  of  the  Lord  (with  a  horned  altar) 
to  which  pilgrimages  must  be  made,"  and  also  a  plurality  of 

^  A  small  point  on  the  words  "  a  statute  for  ever "  in  Leviticus 
xvii.  7  requires  notice.  This  would  most  naturally  refer  only  to  the 
sentence  immediately  preceding  (i.e.  the  prohibition  of  sacrificing 
to  satyrs),  but  possibly  should  be  extended  to  all  slaughter  by 
persons  within  a  reasonable  distance  (Deut.  xii.  21)  of  the  relig- 
ious center. 


194  Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 

lay  altars.  Deuteronomy  does  the  same  in  both  respects,  but 
it  is  alleged  that  there  is  a  discrepancy  between  Exodus  xx., 
which  permits  the  sacrifice  of  burnt-offerings  at  local  altars, 
and  Deuteronomy  xii.  13,  14.  To  explain  this  it  is  necessary 
to  consider  the  historical  background. 

There  are  always  two  ways  of  construing  any  law.  Either 
an  isolated  phrase  may  be  wrested  from  the  context  and  (cer- 
tain expressions  in  it  being  emphasized)  be  made  to  bear  a 
meaning  foreign  to  the  original  intent,  or  else  the  law  may  be 
considered  as  a  whole,  regard  being  paid  to  the  historical 
background  and  the  manifest  intent  of  the  legislator,  while 
individual  expressions  are  construed  in  the  light  so  afforded. 
If  we  really  wish  to  understand  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy  we 
must  in  each  case  regard  the  legislation  as  a  whole. 

Exodus  XX.  is  a  law  given  with  intent  to  guard  the  preex- 
isting custom  of  lay  sacrifice  from  abuses.  It  is  abundantly 
clear  that  it  deals  with  lay  altars  only,  and  therefore  that  the 
only  burnt-offerings  to  which  it  can  refer  are  such  as  were 
customarily  offered  at  lay  altars.  When  it  is  remembered 
that  the  same  legislation  recognizes  a  house  of  the  Lord  to 
which  pilgrimages  were  to  be  made  on  the  three  festivals,  the 
question  arises,  Could  or  would  a  lay  altar  be  used  by  a  pil- 
grim on  such  an  occasion?  Exodus  xxiii.  15  and  xxxiv.  20 
("And  none  shall  appear  before  me  empty")  answer  the 
question.  The  "  appearance  before  God  "  at  the  House  clearly 
does  not  mean  an  appearance  at  a  casual  stone  or  mound.  It 
is  an  appearance  at  the  House  with  the  horned  altar,  and  it  is 
an  appearance  with  sacrifices.  Thus  this  legislation  recog- 
nizes sacrifices  which  could  be  offered  at  the  House  and  no- 
where else.  The  same  holds  good  of  Exodus  xxxiv.  25: 
"  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice  with  leavened 
bread ;    neither  shall  the  sacrifice  of  the  feast  of  the  passover 


W ellhausen  s  Prolegomena.  195 

remain  all  night  unto  the  morning."  Seeing  that  passover  was 
also  one  of  the  "  appearances  before  the  Lord,"  the  matter 
cannot  be  doubtful.  Anybody  who  wishes  for  a  description  of 
what  actually  occurred  on  such  occasions  need  only  read  the 
first  two  chapters  of  First  Samuel.  Even  when  abuses  had 
crept  in,  it  never  entered  anybody's  head  that  these  sacrifices 
could  be  presented  at  a  lay  altar.  And  so  we  see  the  meaning 
of  Exodus  XX.  Theoretically,  if  the  passage  stood  alone, 
''  thy  burnt-offerings  and  thy  peace-offerings "  might  mean 
either  "  all  thy  burnt-offerings  and  thy  peace-offerings  of 
whatever  nature  "  or  else  "  all  such  burnt-offerings  and  peace- 
offerings  as  thou  mayest  offer  in  accordance  with  the  exist- 
ing custom  as  to  lay  sacrifice,  but  not  other  burnt-offerings 
or  peace-offerings  which  do  not  fall  within  this  custom."  But 
as  the  passage  does  not  stand  alone,  we  see  that  the  first  in- 
terpretation is  erroneous  and  the  second  correct;  or,  to  put 
the  matter  in  another  way,  the  law  relates  merely  to  custom- 
ary, not  to  statutory,  sacrifices. 

Conversely  it  appears  that  Deuteronomy  xii.  deals  with 
statutory,  not  customary,  sacrifices.  Hence  the  apparent 
antinomy.  Really  Exodus  xx.  and  Deuteronomy  xii.  are 
treating  of  different  things  in  a  manner  perfectly  intelligible 
to  contemporaries.  But  to  untrained  foreigners  living  in  a 
widely  different  age,  and  in  circumstances  that  present  no 
resemblance  to  those  of  Hebrew  antiquity,  a  few  phrases 
present  difficulties.     I  proceed  to  prove  this  in  detail. 

First,  whatever  non-lawyers  may  think,  it  is  quite  incon- 
ceivable that  a  legislator  should  recognize  as  lawful  in  chapter 
xvi.  something  that  he  had  prohibited  in  chapter  xii.  Such 
a  construction  of  the  law  is  manifestly  erroneous. 

Secondly,  Deuteronomy  xii.  never  prohibits  lay  altars  at  all. 
If  the  introductory  verses  of  the  chapter  be  read,  its  whole 


196  Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 

meaning  becomes  clear.  The  Israelites  were  about  to  enter 
a  land  in  which  there  were  numerous  Canaanitish  high  places 
(not  plain  lay  altars)  with  idolatrous  accessories.  They  had 
ever  been  prone  to  apostacy  (Num.  xxv.  2;  Lev.  xvii. ;  Deut. 
xii.  8).  Moses,  not  unnaturally,  feared  that  they  might  be 
tempted  to  go  to  these  places  and  there  offer  gifts  that  should 
be  brought  only  to  the  House  of  the  Lord.  '  Probably  his  fears 
were  rendered  more  acute  by  the  existence  among  the  Canaan- 
ites  of  sacrificial  institutions  closely  resembling  in  most  ex- 
ternals the  statutory  individual  offerings  he  had  introduced. 
Accordingly  he  vigorously  denounces  the  "places  upon  the  high 
mountains,  and  upon  the  hills,  and  under  every  green  tree," 
and  enjoins  the  destruction  of  such  altars  and  their  idolatrous 
accessories.  What  follows  is  directed  to  preventing  such 
places  from  being  used  by  IsraeHtes.  In  so  far  as  the  ordinary 
common-law  worship  at  lay  altars  was  concerned,  there  was 
obviously  no  danger;  but  it  was  otherwise  with  the  new 
statutory  offerings  introduced  by  the  Mosaic  legislation  and 
with  the  food  sacrifices  of  Leviticus  xvii.  It  is  to  these,  and 
these  alone,  that  the  chapter  is  addressed.  Indeed,  had  this 
been  headed  (as  might  be  the  case  in  a  modern  statute) 
"  Statutory  Individual  Offerings,"  while  Exodus  xx.  was 
headed  "  Customary  Lay  Sacrifices,"  no  difficulties  could  have 
arisen.  Whatever  the  views  of  later  generations,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  hold  that  the  contemporaries  of  Moses  could  really 
have  supposed  this  chapter  to  refer  to  the  old  lay  sacrifices 
which  they  were  in  the  habit  of  offering  on  many  solemn  or 
joyous  occasions. 

Once  this  is  firmly  grasped,  all  difficulties  disappear.  There 
is  no  antinomy  between  Deuteronomy  xii.  and  xvi.,  because 
it  is  seen  that  the  former  deals  with  a  different  class  of  offer- 
ings from  those  contemplated  by  the  latter.     Another  diffi- 


W ellhausen s  Proleo^oinena.  197 


culty  —  insuperable  for  a  lawyer  —  that  Deuteronomy  xii. 
contains  no  prohibition  of  the  previously  legal  lay  altars  which 
on  the  Wellhausen  theory  it  was  meant  to  abrogate  —  also 
vanishes.  And,  lastly,  it  becomes  clear  that  there  is  no  con- 
flict between  Deuteronomy  xii.  13  f.  and  Exodus  xx.,  since  the 
former  is  concerned  only  with  statutory  burnt-offerings,  while 
the  latter  merely  contemplates  customary  burnt-oiferings. 

When  it  is  understood  that  the  legal  provisions  of  JE  and 
Deuteronomy  are  in  perfect  harmony,  it  follows  that  the 
practice  of  the  age  of  vSamuel  conforms  as  well  with  one  as 
with  the  other.  Hence  no  detailed  examination  of  the  history 
is  here  necessary :  yet  two  or  three  remarks  may  be  made  on 
Wellhausen's  survey. 

1.  In  considering  the  evidence  of  Elijah  it  is  important  to 
note  that  while  he  speaks  of  "  thy  altars  "  as  being  thrown 
down  (1  Kings  xix.  10,  14),  this  phrase  is  most  naturally 
interpreted  of  such  lay  altars  as  that  on  Carmel  which  he  had 
found  in  disrepair  (1  Kings  xviii.  30).  The  account  of  his 
proceedings  shows  clearly  that  we  have  to  do  here  with  an 
ordinary  lay  altar  used  more  or  less  permanently,  not  with  a 
*'  house  of  God  ''  or  a  horned  altar  served  by  priests.  Hence 
when  we  read  Elijah's  complaint  it  is  natural  to  refer  it  to 
such  altars  as  that  on  Carmel. 

2.  When  Wellhausen  speaks  of  Hezekiah's  attempt  to 
abolish  other  sanctuaries,  he  fails  to  notice  that,  according  to 
2  Kings  xviii.  4,  he  appears  to  have  left  the  lay  altars.  In 
verse  22  he  is  charged  with  having  destroyed  the  altars  of 
God,  apparently  all  altars;  but  the  contrast  between  verse  4 
and  verse  22  does  not  favor  this  view.  Even  Robertson  Smith  ^ 
writes:  "A  distinction  between  a  high  place  and  an  altar  is 
acknowledged  in  the  Old  Testament  down  to  the  close  of  the 

^Religion  of  the  Semites   (2d  Ed.),  p.  490. 


198  Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 

Kingdom  (2  Kings  xxiii.  15,  Isa.  xxxvi.  7)."  If  Hezekiah 
did  leave  the  lay  altars  while  destroying  all  the  bamoth  con- 
taining heathenish  accessories,  his  action  exactly  corresponds 
with  the  sole  view  of  the  original  meaning  of  the  Law  which 
is,  legally  speaking,  possible. 

With  regard  to  Wellhausen's  discussion  of  P,  this  depends 
mainly  on  his  inability  to  discriminate  between  substantive  law 
and  procedure ;  and  for  the  moment  the  consideration  of  this 
will  be  deferred  in  order  to  clear  away  certain  minor  points. 

1.  It  is  contended  that  Joshua  xxii.  proves  that  only  a 
single  altar  is  legal.  This  argument  results  from  the  con- 
fusion of  lay  altars  and  horned  altars.  The  altar  of  the  trans- 
Jordanic  tribes  was  built  after  the  pattern  of  the  great  altar 
of  burnt-offering,  and  was  therefore  a  horned  altar.  The  pro- 
test against  its  erection  proves  nothing  whatever  with  regard 
to  lay  altars. 

2.  Wellhausen  writes  of  P :  ''  Nowhere  does  it  become  ap- 
parent that  the  abolition  of  the  Bamoth  and  Asherim  and  mem- 
orial stones  is  the  real  object  contemplated ;  these  institutions 
are  now  almost  unknown,  and  what  is  really  only  intelligible 
as  a  negative  and  polemical  ordinance  is  regarded  as  full  of 
meaning  in  itself"  (p.  36).  The  superficiality  of  Wellhau- 
sen's acquaintance  with  P  must  explain,  though  it  cannot  ex- 
cuse, this  misrepresentation.  P  is  as  definite  and  emphatic 
on  the  subject  as  the  other  parts  of  the  legislation:  "then  ye 
shall  drive  out  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  from  before  you, 
and  destroy  all  their  figured  stones,  and  destroy  all  their  mol- 
ten images,  and  demolish  all  their  Bamoth"  (Num.  xxxiii. 
52  (ps);  compare  Leviticus  xxvi.  1,  30  (both  P^^)).  It  is 
of  course  true  that  P  contains  no  prohibition  of  such  bamoth 
as  Samuel's ;  but  neither  does  JE  or  D,  both  of  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  regard  lay  altars  as  lawful. 


Wellhmisen's  Prolegomena.  199 

3.  The  indictment  of  the  Mosaic  altar  and  tent  takes  no 
account  of  the  condition  of  the  text  of  the  concluding  chapters 
of  Exodus,  or  of  the  fact  that,  according  to  P  itself,  the  tent 
was  capable  of  transportation  in  six  pair-ox  wagons  aided  by 
porters.^ 

4.  The  discussion  of  the  Mosaic  altar  of  burnt-offering 
(p.  44)  ignores  the  fact  (noticed  above)  that  either  that  altar 
or  some  other  horned  altar  was  to  be  found  before  the  Ark 
at  an  earlier  date  than  the  erection  of  Solomon's  temple. 

Before  passing  to  the  second  great  confusion  we  must  con- 
sider the  various  kinds  of  offerings  somewhat  further.  We 
have  seen  very  fully  that  law  and  history  alike  recognize  at 
least  two  kinds  of  sacrifices:  (1)  customary  offerings  pre- 
sented locally  at  a  lay  altar;  and  (2)  statutory  offerings 
which  could  be  offered  only  at  the  religious  center.  But 
hitherto  we  have  dealt  purely  with  individual  sacrifices.  In 
point  of  fact,  however,  there  are  two  kinds  of  statutory  sac- 
rifices—  those  offered  by  individuals,  and  those  offered  on 
behalf  of  the  whole  people.  Thus  we  really  have  three  classes : 
(1)  customary  (individual)  offerings,  (2)  statutory  individ- 
ual offerings,  (3)  (statutory)  national  offerings.  I  adopt 
this  terminology  because  I  believe  the  words  "  public "  and 
"  private  "  to  lend  themselves  too  readily  to  confusion.  "  Pri- 
vate "  is  apt  to  obscure  the  distinction  between  customary  in- 
dividual offerings  and  statutory  individual  offerings:  "public," 
that  between  statutory  individual  offerings  and  national  offer- 
ings. Anybody  who  wishes  to  clear  his  mind  on  the  point 
should  read,  e.g..  Numbers  xxviii.  f.,  or  the  passage  as  to  the 
shewbread  in  Leviticus  xxiv.  5-9,  or  the  requirement  as  to 
the  sheaf  in  Leviticus  xxiii.  10-14,  and  ask  himself  whether 

^On  the  allegations  as  to  the  tent  in  E  (p.  39),  see  supra,  pp  93- 
102,  with  pp.  66-70,  91. 


200 


Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Critici 


ism. 


these   were  to  be  offered  by  or  on  behalf  of   any  (and  if    so 
which)  individual  or  on  behalf  of  the  whole  nation. 

Thus  the  sacrificial  system  contemplated    by    the    Law    is 
represented  by  the  following  table : — 


Desceiption. 


1.  Customary 
lay  offer- 
ings. 


2.  Statutory 
individual 
offerings. 

3.  Statutory 
national 
offerings. 


Origin. 


Pre-Mosaic, 
regulated 
but  not 
abolished 
by  Moses. 

Introduced 
by  Moses. 


Introduced 
by  Moses. 


Whether  in- 
dividual OR 
national. 


Individual. 


Individual. 


National. 


By  whom 

OFFERED. 


Offered  by 
laymen  with- 
out priestly 
assistance. 


Offered  by 
laymen  with 
priestly 
assistance. 

I  Offered  by 
the  priests. 


Where 

OFFERED. 


At  a  local 
altar. 


At  the 

religious 

capital. 


At  the 

religious 

capital. 


The  resemblances  and  the  differences  alike  offer  numerous 
opportunities  for  blundering  to  those  who  have  no  grasp  of 
the  subject. 

The  national  offerings  which  figure  so  largely  in  P  are  not 

mentioned  in  JE  or   D.     It  therefore  becomes  necessary  to 

prove  from  the  history  that  they  in  fact  existed  long  before 

the    Exile.      Not    unnaturally    the    references    are    scanty    in 

number  and  incidental  in  character;   yet  they  are  sufficient  to 

show  the  existence  of  these  offerings.    The  better  to  deal  with 

the  higher  critical  case  I  quote  the  following  statement  from 

Dr.  Gray's  "  Numbers."     The  source  appears  to  be  the  note 

on  page  79  of  Wellhausen's  Prolegomena. 

"Before  the  Exile  the  daily  offering  consisted  of  a  n^iy  [burnt- 
offering]  in  the  morning  and  a  nn^O  [meal-offering]  in  the  evening 
(2  K.  xvi  15:  cp.  1  K.  xviii  29,  36).  Ezekiel  also  requires  one  n^iy 
and  one  nnJD  (clearly  a  meal-offering)  to  be  offered  every  day,  but 
requires  both  to  be  offered  in  the  morning.     Neh.  x    34   (33)    still 


Wellhausen's  Prolegomena.  201 

speaks  of  a  daily  nnJD  and  a  daily  n?iy ;  it  does  not  specify  the 
time  of  offering,  and  it  is  therefore  uncertain  whether  in  this  re- 
spect it  agreed  with  2  K.  xvi  15  or  Ezek. ;  but  in  common  with  both 
of  these  it  co-ordmates  the  r\^)V  and  nnJD.  The  present  law  (Nu. 
xxviii  3-8)  requires  two  n'piy  daily,  one  in  the  morning  and  one  in 
the  evening,  and  also  two  nnjD;but  the  nnJD  is  in  each  <:;ase  subor- 
dinated to  the  njjiy  ."  ^ 

Now,  first,  it  is  true  that  1  Kings  xviii.  29,  36  speaks  of 
the  time  of  the  offering  of  the  meal-offering  in  terms  that 
make  it  quite  clear  that  the  time  meant  was  in  the  evening: 
but  it  is  also  true  that  2  Kings  iii.  20  (which  the  critics  char- 
acteristically ignore)  speaks  of  "  in  the  morning,  about  the 
time  of  oft'ering  the  meal-offering."  Therefore  there  was  also 
a  meal-offering  in  the  morning,  at  any  rate  during  some  part 
of  the  preexilic  period.  Secondly,  it  is  always  a  wise  precau- 
tion to  read  the  passages  to  which  one  refers.  Second  Kings 
xvi.  15  contains  the  following  directions  from  Ahaz:  "Upon 
the  great  altar  burn  the  morning  burnt-offering,  and  the  even- 
ing meal-offering,  and  the  king's  burnt-offering,  and  his  meal- 
offering,  with  the  burnt-offering  of  all  the  people  of  the  land, 
and  their  meal-offering,  and  their  drink-offerings  and  sprinkle 
upon  it  all  the  blood  of  the  burnt-offering,"  etc.  Higher  crit- 
ical arithmetic  is  of  course  notoriously  a  little  weak;  but  there 
is  a  general  impression  abroad  that  one  and  one  make  two, 
not  one.  The  morning  burnt-offering  is  one,  the  burnt-offer- 
ing of  all  the  people  is  also  one:  total,  two.  (The  king's 
offering  of  course  falls  out  of  account  for  this  purpose.) 
Moreover,  *'  the  burnt-offering  of  all  the  people,  and  their 
meal-offering,  and  their  drink-offerings  "  looks  very  much  as 
if  we  had  to  do  with  subordinated  meal-offerings  and  drink- 
offerings.  Curiously  enough,  too,  even  Numbers  xxviii.  8, 
which  subordinates  meal-offerings,  speaks  of  "  the  meal-offer- 
ing of  the  morning,"  which  is  very  much  like  2  Kings  iii.  20.  It 
^Gray,  Numbers,  p.  405 


202  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

is  therefore  clear  that  in  truth  and  in  fact  preexilic  practice 
did  agree  with  this  law.  What  does  appear  is  the  addition 
of  a  name,  perhaps  also  a  difference  in  the  emphasis  laid  on 
the  different  offerings.  So  long  as  there  were  only  two  offer- 
ings of  each  sort,  it  was  sufficient  to  speak  of  morning  and 
evening.  When  a  king's  offering  was  added,  apparently  the 
name  ''  burnt-offering  of  all  the  people  of  the  land "  was 
sometimes  used  to  distinguish  from  it  one  of  the  other  two. 
There  is  also  nothing  in  this  passage  about  one  of  the  meal- 
offerings  being  offered  in  the  morning;  but,  in  view  of  2 
Kings  iii.  30,  this  will  not  help  the  critics.  It  is  of  course 
possible  that  slight  variations  took  place  from  time  to  time: 
indeed  these  directions  of  Ahaz  prove  that  much.  But  there  is 
clearly  no  substantial  difference  between  the  practice  here  and 
the  law  of  P.  The  passage  in  Nehemiah  does  not  affect  our 
question  either  way:  but  Dr.  Gray  is  right  in  saying  that  it 
"  is  not  entirely  free  from  obscurity."  ^ 

For  our  purposes  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  national 
offerings  can  be  traced  back  to  a  period  before  the  kingdom. 
The  shewbread  was  a  national  offering.  It  is  not  mentioned 
in  JE  or  D.  Yet  we  see  it  at  Nob.  From  this,  two  results 
follow:  (1)  at  the  earliest  post-Mosaic  times  of  which  we 
have  cognizance  national  offerings  existed;  (2)  inasmuch  as 
they  existed  long  before  the  alleged  dates  of  the  composition 
of  JE  and  D,  and  yet  are  not  mentioned  in  those  documents, 
no  inference  at  all  can  be  drawn  from  the  silence  of  those 
documents  on  these  or  similar  points.  This  is  the  answer 
to  Wellhausen's  argument  on  page  103 :  "  Centralisation 
is  synonymous  with  generalisation  and  fixity,  and  these  are 

^  Dr.  Gray  makes  a  point  of  the  quantities  in  Numbers  xxviii.  f. 
being  fixed.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  we  are  dealing  here  with 
the  national  offerings,  which  in  this  as  in  other  respects  differed 
somewhat  from  individual  offerings. 


IVcllhausen's  Prolegomena.  203 


the  external  features  by  which  the  festivals  of  the  Priestly 
Code  are  distinguished  from  those  which  preceded  them.  In 
evidence  I  point  to  the  prescribed  sacrifice  of  the  community 
instead  of  the  spontaneous  sacrifice  of  the  individual."  ^  And 
the  confusion  appears  even  more  distinctly  on  page  90,  where 
we  read  of  Deuteronomy :  "  Even  here,  however,  we  do  not 
meet  with  one  general  festive  offering  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
munity, but  only  with  isolated  private  offerings  by  individ- 
uals." As  such  general  sacrifices  are  proved  to  have  existed 
before  the  date  to  which  Wellhausen  assigns  Deuteronomy, 
his  reasoning  is  clearly  valueless. 

Before  we  can  make  much  use  of  these  distinctions  for  the 
destruction  of  Wellhausen's  main  case,  we  must  proceed  to 
notice  the  other  great  source  of  confusion  —  the  ignorance  of 
the  distinction  between  substantive  law  and  procedure.  Using 
law  in  a  wide  sense  to  cover  sacrificial  as  well  as  jural  law,  it 
will  be  seen  that  this  is  a  natural  distinction.  If  A  enters 
into  a  contract  with  X  that  he  shall  sell  him  a  book,  the  rights 
and  duties  of  A  and  X  under  that  contract  will  be  governed 
by  legal  rules.  If,  however,  X  does  not  fulfil  his  duties,  A 
may  desire  to  have  recourse  to  a  court  to  enforce  his  right. 
From  that  moment  the  interest  shifts  from  the  question  of 
what  his  right  is  to  the  question  how  that  right  is  to  be  en- 
forced. How  is  he  to  set  about  the  business?  By  the  issue  of 
a  writ?  If  so,  how  and  when  and  by  whom  are  writs  issued? 
And  so  on.  All  these  latter  questions  are  questions  of  pro- 
cedure. In  jural  law,  procedure  in  litigation  is  the  most  im- 
portant part  of  procedure :  it  is,  however,  not  the  only  pro- 
cedure. If  I  am  owner  of  Whiteacre  I  have  a  right  to  sell  it: 
but,  in  order  to  make  a  valid  title  for  the  purchaser,  he  and  I 
must  go  through  the  appropriate  procedure,  e.g.  executing 
*The  other  arguments  adduced  by  Wellhausen  at  this  point  will 
be  refuted  further  on. 


204  Essays  in  Pentatcitchal  Criticisfn. 

the  necessary  instrument  or  instruments  for  carrying  out  my 
intention.  Similarly  with  sacrifice.  A  command  that  particu- 
lar sacrifices  shall  be  offered  is  substantive  law.  The  method 
of  offering  and  ancillary  matters,  such  as  the  dues  to  be 
paid  to  the  priests,  etc.,  fall  within  the  province  of  procedure. 

In  countries  that  have  codified  their  law  it  is  frequently  the 
case  that  separate  codes  are  devoted  to  procedure  in  litigation. 
Thus  codes  of  civil  procedure  and  criminal  procedure  will 
frequently  be  found  by  the  side  of  codes  of  civil  and  criminal 
law.  In  the  codes  of  procedure  the  emphasis  naturally  lies 
on  methods  of  procedure.  It  is  assumed  that  a  duty  is  alleged 
to  have  been  broken,  and  the  rules  deal  with  the  steps  to  be 
taken  in  such  a  state  of  affairs.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
codes  of  substantive  law  the  emphasis  Hes  on  the  rights  and 
duties  of  the  parties,  not  on  the  remedies  to  be  pursued  in 
case  of  a  breach  of  law.  Such  distinctions  arise  universally 
because  they  are  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  subject.  They 
do  not  prove  diversity  of  date  or  authorship. 

A  great  part  of  Wellhausen's  book  rests  on  his  ignorance 
of  these  fundamental  considerations.  We  have  seen  that  JE 
and  D  require  Israelites  to  bring  certain  statutory  individual 
offerings  to  the  religious  capital.  The  procedure  to  be  follow- 
ed in  such  cases  is  for  the  most  part  contained  in  P.  That  is 
the  answer  to  such  passages  as  the  following: — 

"But  is  it  older  or  younger  than  Deuteronomy?  In  that  book 
the  unity  of  the  cultus  is  commanded;  in  the  Priestly  Code  it  is 
presupposed.  Everywhere  it  is  tacitly  assumed  as  a  fundamental 
postulate,  but  nowhere  does  it  find  actual  expression"    (p.  35). 

"An  altogether  disproportionate  emphasis  is  accordingly  laid  upon 
the  technique  of  sacrifice  corresponding  to  the  theory,  alike  upon 
the  when,  the  ichere,  and  the  'by  whom,  and  also  in  a  very  special 
manner  upon  the  how''  (p.  52). 

Such  are  the  characteristics  of  every  code  of  procedure. 
For  instance,  the  procedure  for  commencing  actions  in  a  given 


Wellhausens  Proleoomena.  205 


court  necessarily  assumes  that  there  will  be  persons  who  will 
conceive  themselves  to  have  good  causes  of  action,  and  will 
accordingly  invoke  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court;  and  accord- 
ingly it  will  "  presuppose  "  the  existence  of  the  court  and  of 
the  cause  of  action  and  occupy  itself  with  "  the  zvhen,  the 
where,  the  by  whom,  and  the  how/'  to  the  partial  or  total  ex- 
clusion of  all  other  topics.  On  the  other  hand,  the  code  of 
substantive  law  will  assume  that  such  matters  are  dealt  with 
in  the  code  of  procedure  and  will  accordingly  leave  them  out  of 
account. 

These  then  are  the  confusions  that  underHe  Wellhausen's 
arguments  about  the  relation  of  P  to  the  other  portions  of  the 
legislation.  They  are  admirably  illustrated  in  the  following 
sentence  as  to  J :  "  How  one  is  to  set  about  offering  sacrifice 
is  taken  for  granted  as  already  known,  and  nowhere  figures 
as  an  affair  for  the  legislation,  which,  on  the  contrary, 
occup"ies  itself  with  quite  other  things"  (p.  53).  Here  we 
have  two  confusions:  (1)  in  part,  Wellhausen  is  thinking  of 
customary  lay  sacrifice  and  confusing  it  with  the  statutory  in- 
dividual sacrifices;  but  (2)  in  part,  also,  he  is  faUing  into  the 
error  of  expecting  to  find  procedure  dealt  with  in  the  wrong 
place.  To  make  this  quite  clear  it  will  be  necessary  to  dwell 
on  other  considerations. 

An  Israelite  presenting  himself  at  the  House  of  God  which 
was  controlled  by  a  priesthood  would  necessarily  have  to  con- 
form to  the  instructions  they  might  give  him  if  he  desired  to 
offer.  This  is  sufficiently  obvious  without  argument.  We 
have  an  interestino-  illustration  in  1  Samuel  ii.,  where  the 
laity  were  forced  to  conform  even  to  practices  that  they  be- 
lieved to  be  wrong.^    In  most  cases,  however,  there  would  be 

^To  avoid  interrupting  the  thread  of  the  argument,  the  discrep- 
ancy alleged  to  exist  between  this  passage  and  P  will  be  discussed 
later  on. 


206  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

no  conflict.  The  layman  would  be  anxious  to  offer  in  the 
right  way:  the  priest  would  be  there  to  give  him  the  neces- 
sary instructions.  As  the  procedure  relating  to  the  statutory 
individual  offerings  was  technical,  and  a  knowledge  of  it 
could  never  be  required  save  at  the  House  of  God,  it  was 
naturally  relegated  by  Moses  to  that  portion  of  his  legislation 
which,  as  we  shall  see  later,  was  to  reach  the  people  only 
through  the  teaching  of  the  priests. 

The  fact  that  Moses  introduced  for  the  first  time  statutory 
individual  offerings  which  could  be  performed  only  at  the  re- 
ligious capital  with  the  aid  of  priests  made,  it  necessary  to  de- 
fine and  regulate  the  respective  roles  of  sacrificant  and  priest; 
and  accordingly  we  find  such  regulations  in  P.^  This  and  the 
confusion  between  customary  lay  sacrifice  and  statutory  indi- 
vidual sacrifice  are  responsible  for  Wellhausen's  argument  on 
page  54,  where  he  says  of  J :  "According  to  this  representation 
of  the  matter,  Moses  left  the  procedure  in  sacrifice  ....  to  be 
regulated  by  the  traditional  praxis."  That  is  true  of  the  first 
kind  of  sacrifice,  and  once  the  necessary  distinction  is  drawn, 
no  difficulty  or  inconsistency  remains. 

The  clear  distinction  between  substantive  law  and  procedure 
makes  it  easy  to  dispose  of  Wellhausen's  account  of  the  festi- 
vals. On  pages  99  f.  Wellhausen  alleges,  with  regard  to  the 
three  pilgrimage  festivals,  that  in  P 

"  the  festal  celebration,  properly  so  called,  is  exhausted  by  a  pre- 
scribed joint  offering.  .  .  .  The  passover  alone  continues  in  the 
Priestly  Code  also  to  be  a  sacrificial  meal,  and  participation  therein 
to  be  restricted  to  the  family  or  a  limited  society.  But  this  last 
remnant  of  the  old  custom  shows  itself  here  as  a  peculiar  excep- 
tion ;  .  .  .  . 

"  Of  a  piece  with  this  is  the  circumstance  that  the  '  first-fruits '  of 
the  season  have  come  to  be  separated  from  the  festivals  still  more 

^  It  is  not  the  case  that  the  priest  slaughters  the  animal  sacri- 
ficed by  an  individual.  On  the  contrary,  the  sacrificant  performs 
this  duty  (Lev.  i.  5,  etc.). 


Wcllhauscn's  Prolegomena.  20? 

than  had  been  previously  the  case.  While  in  Deuteronomy  they  are 
still  offered  at  the  three  great  sacrificial  meals  in  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  in  the  Priestly  Code  they  have  altogether  ceased  to  be  offer- 
ings at  all,  and  thus  also  of  course  have  ceased  to  be  festal  offer- 
ings, being  merely  dues  payable  to  the  priests  (by  whom  they  are  in 
part  collected)  and  not  in  any  case  brought  before  the  altar.  Thus 
the  feasts  entirely  lose  their  peculiar  characteristics,  the  occasions 
by  which  they  are  inspired  and  distinguished;  by  the  monotonous 
sameness  of  the  unvarying  burnt-offering  and  sin-offering  of  the  com- 
munity as  a  whole  they  are  all  put  on  the  same  even  level,  deprived 
of  their  natural  spontaneity,  and  degraded  into  mere  *  exercises  of 
religion.'  Only  some  very  slight  traces  continue  to  bear  witness  to, 
we  might  rather  say,  to  betray,  what  was  the  point  from  which  the 
development  started,  namely,  the  rites  of  the  barley  sheaf,  the  loaves 
of  bread,  and  the  booths  (Lev.  xxiii.).  But  these  are  mere  rites,  pet- 
rified remains  of  the  old  custom ;  the  actual  first-fruits  belonging  to 
the  owners  of  the  soil  are  collected  by  the  priests,  the  shadow  of 
them  is  retained  at  the  festival  in  the  form  of  the  sheaf  offered  by 
the  whole  community  —  a  piece  of  symbolism  which  has  now  become 
quite  separated  from  its  connection  and  is  no  longer  understood.  And 
since  the  giving  of  thanks  for  the  fruits  of  the  field  has  ceased  to 
have  any  substantial  place  in  the  feasts,  the  very  shadow  of  connec- 
tion between  the  two  also  begins  to  disappear,  for  the  rites  of  Lev. 
xxiii.  are  taken  over  from  an  older  legislation,  and  for  the  most  part 
are  passed  over  in  silence  in  Num.  xxviii.,  xxix.  Here,  again,  the 
passover  has  followed  a  path  of  its  own.  Even  at  an  earlier  period, 
substitution  of  other  cattle  and  sheep  was  permitted.  But  now  in 
the  Priestly  Code  the  firstlings  are  strictly  demanded  indeed,  but 
merely  as  dues,  not  as  sacrifices;  the  passover,  always  a  yearling 
lamb  or  kid,  has  neither  in  fact  nor  in  time  anything  to  do  with 
them,  but  occupies  a  separate  position  alongside." 

I  begin  with  Passover.  The  theory  that  in  P  the  festival  is 
celebrated  in  the  house,  and  not  before  the  Lord,  rests  on  Well- 
hausen's  habitual  omission  to  examine  the  evidence.  The 
statements  relating  to  the  second  Passover  (i.e.  the  first  anni- 
versary of  the  Passover  in  Egypt)  leave  no  doubt  on  that  head. 
In  Numbers  ix.  6-14  we  read  how  certain  men  who  were  not 
in  a  state  of  sacrificial  cleanness  were  unable  to  perform  their 
statutory  duties.  The  R.  V.  translation  is  here  misleading,  for 
''  offer  the  oblation  "  (ver.  7  and  13)  does  not  represent  the 
original  adequately.     The  Hebrew  uses  technical  terms  which 


208  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

signify  the  presentation  of  sacrifices  at  the  rehgious  capital. 
Attendance  at  the  religious  capital  is  also  implied  by  Exodus 
xii.  48  (''let  him  come  near")  ;  but  from  verse  46  it  would 
seem  that  the  actual  meal  was  intended  to  take  place  in  each 
family's  temporary  or  permanent  abode,  though  presumably 
the  animal  was  killed  at  the  religious  center.  This  disposes  of 
Wellhausen's  argument  (p.  102)  that  "  the  law  relating  to 
Easter  is  removed  from  all  connection  with  the  tabernacle 
legislation  (Exod.  xii.  1  seq.),  and  the  difficulty  that  now  in 
the  case  of  the  passover  the  sanctuary  which  elsewhere  in  the 
Priestly  Code  is  indispensable  must  be  left  out  of  sight  is  got 
over  by  divesting  it  as  much  as  possible  of  its  sacrificial  char- 
acter." Yet  in  a  note  he  says :  "  The  ignoring  of  the  sanctu- 
ary has  a  reason  only  m  the  case  of  the.  first  passover,  and 
perhaps  ought  to  be  regarded  as  holding  good  for  that  only." 
It  will  now  be  obvious  that  in  point  of  fact,  apart  from  the 
Passover  in  Egypt,  the  whole  legislation  —  that  of  JE  and  P  as 
well  as  D  —  contemplates  an  appearance  at  the  House  of  the 
Lord  on  Passover. 

Wellhausen  further  writes  in  this  connection :  "  But  now 
in  the  Priestly  Code  the  firstlings  are  strictly  demanded  indeed, 
but  merely  as  dues,  not  as  sacrifices"  (p.  100).  That  is  not 
the  case.  In  P  the  firstlings  are  "  holy  " ;  and  P's  rule  as  to 
"  holy  "  things  other  than  most  holy  things  and  wave-of¥erings 
is  expressed  in  Numbers  v.  9  f.  This  passage  is  very  import- 
ant :  because  it  not  merely  explains  the  difficulties  that  have 
been  felt  as  to  firstlings,  but  clearly  proves  the  large  measure 
of  spontaneity  and  free  will  attaching  to  the  sacrificial  system. 
''And  every  terumah  [E.V.  "  heave-oflfering  "]  of  all  the  holy 
things  of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  they  present  unto  the 
priest,  shall  be  his.  And  every  man's  holy  things  shall  be  his : 
whatsoever  any  man  giveth  the  priest,  it  shall  be  his."     That 


W ellhansen' s  Prolegomena.  209 

is  to  say,  the  Israelite  consumed  such  holy  things  as  were 
brought  to  the  religious  capital  (e.g.  firstlings)  at  a  sacrificial 
feast.  But  of  them  he  gave  a  terumah  (consisting  of  such  ani- 
mals or  amounts  as  he  might  choose)  to  the  priest.  The  sub- 
sequent disposition  of  this  terumah  is  regulated  by  Numbers' 
xviii.  It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  no  question  of  these  first- 
lings and  other  holy  things  being  "  demanded  as  dues,"  or 
**  collected  by  the  priests." 

The  next  event  in  the  festal  cycle  is  the  presentation  of  the 
kind  of  first-fruits  known  as  reshith.^  The  only  date  we  have 
here  is  that  of  Leviticus  xxiii.  10  f.  It  is  true  that  this  is  as- 
signed not  to  P  but  to  Pb  (or  H  if  that  notation  be  preferred)  ; 
but  seeing  that  P  incorporated  this  in  his  work  he  must  be 
taken  to  have  agreed  with  the  date.^,  Now  P  contains  rules  of 
procedure  relating  apparently  to  individual  oiferings  of  re- 
shith  (Lev.  ii.  11-13)  which  shows  that  this  legislation  occu- 
pies precisely  the  same  position  as  JE  and  D  in  this  matter, 
for  the  presence  of  such  oflferings  in  P  negatives  the  view  that 
"  the  actual  first-fruits  are  collected  by  the  priests  while  the 
shadow  of  them  is  retained  at  the  festival  in  the  form  of  the 
sheaf,  etc." 

^  On  the  true  distinction  between  reshith  and  Mkkuriru,  of  which 
Welhausen  knows  nothing,  see  Murray's  Illustrated  Bible  Diction- 
ary, s.  v.,  "First-fruits," 

*  Wellhausen  writes  of  Deuteronomy  xxvi.  1  ff. :  "  the  prayer 
with  which  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles  the  share  of  the  festal  gifts 
falling  to  the  priest  is  offered  to  the  Deity"  (p.  92).  The  theory 
that  this  offering  refers  to  tabernacles  is  not  merely  groundless,  but 
demonstrably  wrong:  (1)  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  to  connect 
it  with  tabernacles;  (2)  this  is  an  offering  of  reshith,  and  the  only 
date  given  for  this  is  that  of  Leviticus;  (3)  it  lies  in  the  nature  of 
reshith,  "the  first  of  all  the  fruit  of  the  ground,"  that  it  could  not 
be  offered  at  the  end  of  the  agricultural  year.  To  be  "  first "  it  must 
be  offered  at  "  the  time  thou  beginnest  to  put  the  sickle  in  the  stand- 
ing corn."  Note  that  this  prayer  only  applies  to  reshith  of  -'the 
fruit  of  the  ground,"  i.e.  not  to  wine  or  oil. 


210  Essays  in  Peiitateuchal  Criticism. 

Seven  weeks  after  the  presentation  of  reshith  comes  Pente- 
cost. Here  the  same  tale  awaits  us.  Numbers  xxviii.  36  act- 
ually refers  to  Pentecost  as  "  the  day  of  the  hikkurim."  It 
follows  that  it  did  not  separate  the  first-fruits  of  the  season 
from  the  festival.  Leviticus  ii.  14-16  undoubtedly  deals  with 
the  procedure  to  be  followed  in  the  case  of  individual  offerings 
of  bikkiirim.  And  this  postulates  as  its  necessary  complement 
the  command  for  individual  Israelites  to  bring  hikkurim  to  the 
House  of  the  Lord  (Ex.  xxiii.  19;  xxxiv.  26).  Thus  here 
again  the  view  of  P  and  JE  is  found  to  be  identically  the 
same.  But,  as  usual,  it  is  not  P  that  gives  us  the  primary  and 
constituent  enactment. 

The  third  pilgrimage  festival  was  tabernacles.  On  this 
Wellhausen  writes: — 

" .  .  .  .  Alike  at  Jerusalem  and  at  Bethel  '  the  feast '  was  cele- 
brated from  the  days  of  Solomon  and  Jeroboam  just  as  previously  at 
Shechem  and  Shiloh,  in  the  former  place  in  September,  in  the  latter 
perhaps  somewhat  later.  This  was  at  that  period  the  sole  actual 
panegyris.  The  feasts  at  the  beginning  of  summer  may  indeed  also 
have  been  observed  at  this  early  period  (Isa.  ix.  2),  but  in  smaller 
local  circles,"  etc.  (pp.  94  f.). 

This  leaves  out  of  account  the  notice  that  Solomon  sacrificed 
three  times  in  the  year  (1  Kings  ix.  25).  It  can  scarcely  be 
that  if  he  recognized  tabernacles  (as  is  admitted)  this  was  not 
one  of  the  three  sacrifices.  If  so,  a  presumption  arises  that  the 
other  two  occasions  were  the  other  two  pilgrimage  festivals ; 
and  this  presumption  is  strengthened  by  the  law  of  JE.  Our 
knowledge  of  the  religious  observances  during  the  whole  of 
this  period  is  so  fragmentary  that  it  is  impossible  to  draw  any 
inferences  from  the  non-mention  of  particular  festivals. 

With  regard  to  the  connection  of  tabernacles  and  the  partic- 
ular offerings  of  the  season,  the  matter  is  extremely  simple. 
Tithes  of  wine,  for  example,  could  not  be  dealt  with  until  after 
the  vintage.     Hence  it  follows  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 


W cUhansen s  Prolegomena.  211 

that  they  could  be  used  for  religious  purposes  only  at  taber- 
nacles, and  not  before.  Nature  made  impossible  the  alleged 
'*  dissociation  "  of  the  two. 

I  turn  to  deal  with  some  smaller  points. 

Wellhausen  writes: — 

"  .  .  .  .  We  may  in  like  manner  venture  to  regard  it  as  a  kind  of 
refinement,  though  rather  a  refinement  of  idea,  that  the  flesh  of  the 
sacrifice  in  the  Priestly  Code  is  no  longer  boiled,  but  consigned  to 
the  altar  flames  in  its  raw  condition.  Such  was  not  the  ancient  cus- 
tom, as  is  seen,  not  only  from  the  case  of  Gideon  already  cited 
(Judges  vi.),  but  also  from  the  procedure  at  Shiloh,  described  in  1 
Sam.  ii.,  where  the  sons  of  Eli  will  not  wait  until  the  flesh  of  the 
sacrifice  has  been  boiled,  and  the  altar  pieces  burnt,  but  demand 
their  share  raw  for  roasting"   (pp.  67  f. ;  cp.  p.  62). 

In  1  Samuel  ii.  15-17  we  read :  "  Yea,  before  they  burnt  the 
fat,  the  priest's  servant  came,  and  said  to  the  man  that  sacrificed. 
Give  flesh  to  roast  for  the  priest;  for  he  will  not  have  sodden 
flesh  of  thee,  but  raw.  And  if  the  man  said  unto  him,  They 
will  surely  burn  the  fat  presently,  and  then  take  as  much  as 
thy  soul  desireth ;  then  he  would  say,  Nay,  but  thou  shalt  give 
it  me  now :  and  if  not,  I  will  take  it  by  force.  And  the  sin  of 
the  young  men  was  very  great  before  the  Lord,"  etc.     (R.  V.) 

Now  Leviticus  iii.  does  not  make  it  clear  that  the  flesh  of 
peace-offerings  is  to  be  boiled  at  all,  still  less  when  it  is  to  be 
boiled;  and  accordingly  it  has  been  said  that  here  we  have 
early  practice  contradicting  P.  But  while  it  is  true  that  Levit- 
icus iii.  is  silent  on  the  point,  yet,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the 
practice  of  boiling  such  sacrifices  was  so  universal  that  P 
recognized  it  as  certain  to  be  done  without  specific  directions, 
it  would  appear  that  the  passage  in  Samuel  does  not  prove 
what  Wellhausen  thinks  it  does.  Such  evidence  is  forthcom- 
ing. In  Numbers  vi.  we  have  the  law  of  the  Nazirite  who  is 
to  bring  inter  alia  a  peace-offering.  Nothing  is  said  about 
boiling  the  peace-offering,  but  this  is  assumed  as  self-evidently 


212  Essays  in  Pcntateiichal  Criticism. 

necessary ;  for  in  verse  19  the  law  suddenly  speaks  of 
"  the  sodden  shoulder  of  the  ram."  I  do  not  infer  from  this 
that  anything  on  the  subject  of  boiling  has  fallen  out  of  the 
text.  The  true  inference  is  that  in  pre-Mosaic  times  the  prac- 
tice of  boiling  the  meat  of  peace-offerings  was  universal.  This 
was  continued  by  Moses  in  the  case  of  his  statutory  offerings 
without  express  mention  —  for  no  mention  was  necessary  in 
dealing  with  a  universal  custorn.  Hence,  where  for  some  rea- 
son or  other  a  departure  from  the  usual  practice  was  necessary, 
express  directions  are  given;  e.g.  on  the  Passover  in  Egypt, 
where  the  animals  were  not  ordinary  peace-offerings.  Simi- 
larly, at  the  consecration  of  Aaron,  the  boiling  was,  for  some 
reason,  to  take  place  later.  Otherwise  no  mention  was  neces- 
sary.^ Similarly  Leviticus  vi.  21  (28)  assumes  the  boiling  of 
the  sin-offering,  and  deals  with  the  treatment  of  the  receptacle 
in  which  it  has  been  boiled.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  this  pas- 
sage of  Samuel  is  unfavorable  to  the  critical  case. 

It  is  said  that  P  first  fixed  definite  dates  for  the  festi- 
vals.^ Before  its  publication,  tabernacles,  for  example,  was 
celebrated  in  the  autumn,  but  not  on  any  particular  date.  This 
is  disposed  of  by  1  Kings  xii.  32  f. :  "  Jeroboam  ordained  a 
feast  in  the  eighth  month,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month, 
like  unto  the  feast  that  is  in  Judah.  .  .  .  And  he  went  up  ...  . 
on  the  -fifteenth  day  in  the  eighth  month,  even  in  the  month 
which  he  had  devised  of  his  own  heart!'  The  month  he  had 
devised,  but  not  the  day,  for  the  date  of  tabernacles  —  the 
date  of  P,  and  P  alone  of  the  Pentateuchal  "  codes  "  —  is  the 
fifteenth  of  the  seventh  month.  Can  it  be  doubted  that  there 
was  a  feast  in  Judah  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  a  month  that  was 
not  the  eighth? 

*  Of  course  the  express  command  to  boil  in  Deuteronomy  xvi.  is 
probably  due  to  the  previous  command  as  to  the  Passover  in  Egypt. 
'Wellhausen,  Prolegomena,  p.  101. 


W ellhausen s  Prolegomena.  213 


This  passage  also  disposes  of  another  Httle  critical  argu- 
ment. It  is  alleged  that  before  the  exile  the  months  were  not 
designated  by  numbers/  and  indeed  that,  if  they  had  been, 
Tishri,  now  the  seventh  month,  would  have  been  the  first. 
Thus  P  betrays  late  date  by  numbering  the  months  and  by 
treating  Tishri  —  the  month  of  tabernacles  —  as  the  seventh 
month.  Yet  in  this  passage  of  Kings  we  hear  of  the  eighth 
month  by  number,  and  it  is  sufficiently  obvious  that  Jero- 
boam's choice  was  dictated  by  the  fact  that  it  was  the  month 
after  the  seventh.  It  cannot  be  argued  that  the  month  was 
really  the  second  in  the  days  of  Jeroboam. 

It  may  be  well  to  expose  a  minor  blunder  of  a  singularly 
ludicrous  type  made  by  Wellhausen  in  connection  with  the  fes- 
tivals. As  nearly  all  readers  of  Genesis  i.  are  aware,  the  day 
began  in  the  evening  in  ancient  Israel.  On  page  104  we  read 
in  reference  to  the  Priestly  Code :  "  The  passover,  in  the 
first  month,  on  the  evenino-  of  the  14th,  here  also  indeed  begins 
the  feast,  but  does  not,  as  in  Deut.  xvi.  4,  8,  count  as  the  first 
day  of  Easter  week ;  on  the  contrary,  the  latter  does  not  begin 
until  the  15th  and  closes  with  the  21st  (comp.  Lev.  xxiii.  6; 
Num.  xxviii.  17;  Exod.  xii.  18)."  It  will  be  seen  that  Well- 
hausen admits  that  in  P  the  passover  falls  on  the  evening  of 
the  14th  day,  i.e.  according  to  the  Hebrew  reckoning  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  15th  day  ("  and  it  was  evening  and  it  was  morn- 
ing"). Now  Deuteronomy  xvi.  6  provides  for  the  sacrifice  of 
the  passover  "  at  even,  at  the  going  down  of  the  sun,"  and 
verse  4  speaks  of  ''  in  the  even,  on  the  first  day  "  as  the  time 
of  the  sacrifice.  It  seems  obvious  that  Wellhausen  wrote  this, 
not  heeding  that  this  "  even  "  would  be  the  beginning  and 
not  the  end  of  the  first  day.  It  does  not  "  count  as  the 
first  day  of  Easter  week  "  but  only  as  a  portion  of  the  first 
^  Wellhausen.   Prolegomena,  p.   109. 


214  Essays  in  Pentateiichal  Criticism. 

day:  and  nobody  who  has  read  Genesis  i.  will  doubt  that  P 
reckoned  days  in  the  same  way  as  D  does  here.^ 

Wellhausen's  discussion  of  the  new  moon  need  not  detain 
us.  It  is  abundantly  obvious  that  this  was  celebrated  in  early 
times.  Doubtless  it  was  pre-Mosaic ;  and  it  was  therefore  not 
necessary  to  enact  its  observance,  as  this  already  depended  on 
the  customary  law.  With  regard  to  the  Day  of  Atonement 
and  sin-offerings  it  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  what  I  have  said  in 
the  Princeton  Theological  Review  for  April,  1907.  A  refuta- 
tion of  other  points  will  be  found  in  my  "  Studies  in  Biblical 
Law."  The  melancholy  and  disastrous  blunders  that  we  have 
already  analyzed  necessarily  affect  Wellhausen's  point  of  view- 
throughout,  and,  in  combination  with  a  documentary  theory 
that  is  demonstrably  untenable,^  compel  him  to  take  perverse 
views  of  many  minor  points.  It  may,  however,  be  worth  while 
to  correct  one  of  these  as  a  sample. 

On  pages  68  and  69  Wellhausen  alleges  that  leavened  cakes 
"  seem  originally  by  no  means  to  have  been  considered  unfit  to 
be  offered  as  in  Lev.  ii.  11.  For  under  this  law  of  Lev.  ii.  even 
the  presentation  of  the  shewbread  would  be  inexplicable.'' 
This  particular  misrepresentation  appears  to  be  due  to  Well- 
hausen's omission  to  read  this  and  the  following  verse ;  for  the 
reason  given  is  that  fire  offerings  of  leaven  were  not  to  be 
burnt:  if  offered,  leaven  was  to  be  presented  as  reshith,  and 
not  to  be  burnt  at  the  altar.  Of  course  the  shewbread  was  not 
to  be  burnt  either. 

Mn  a  footnote  on  the  next  page  (105)  Wellhausen  actually  ar- 
jjues  against  this  by  saying  inter  alia  that  "  the  first  day  of  the  feast 
in  Deuteronomy  is  just  the  day  on  the  evening  of  which  the  pass- 
over  is  held,  and  upon  it  there  follow  not  seven  but  six  days  more." 
Yet  Deuteronomy  xvi.  3  clearly  makes  the  seven  days  of  eating  un- 
leavened bread  hegin  with  the  Passover  sacrifice. 

-  See  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  .s'?/?>ra.  pp.  1-174,  and  the 
Expository  Times,  July,  11)00,  pp.  478-475,  September.  1909,  p.  563. 


Wellhausens  Prolegomena.  215 

I  turn  to  a  more  important  matter. 

The  critical  case  is  that  P  is  a  post-exilic  forgery,  though  it 
may  embody  a  good  deal  of  earlier  material.  The  irreducible 
minimum  of  the  historico-legal  case  is  that  the  legislation  at 
any  rate  is  (subject  only  to  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  MS. 
tradition,  which  do  not  affect  the  point  at  issue)  Mosaic,  i.e. 
that  we  have  in  it  the  laws  of  Moses  in  the  language  of  Moses. 
Now  on  the  critical  side  it  is  usual,  after  making  a  number  of 
admissions  as  to  apparent  references  in  the  literature,  to  say 
that  such  references  are  insufficient  to  prove  the  literary  use  of 
P.  But  this  argument  ignores  the  express  statements  of  the 
Pentateuch,  including  P,  which  make  it  clear  beyond  all  possi- 
bility of  doubt  that  the  portions  of  the  legislation  embraced 
in  P  were  for  the  most  part  not  intended  for  general  use : 
''  They  shall  teach  Jacob  thy  judgments,  and  Israel  thy  law  " 
(Deut.  xxxiii.  10,  older  poem  included  in  E)  ;  'Take  heed  in 
the  plague  of  leprosy  that  thou  observe  diligently,  and  do  ac- 
cording to  all  that  the  priests  the  Levites  shall  teach  you :  as  I 
commanded  them,  so  ye  shall  observe  to  do"  (Deut.  xxiv.  8 
(D)).  These  passages  are  tantamount  to  direct  statements 
that  there  were  certain  teachings  which  were  not  intended  to 
be  generally  current,  but  were  intrusted  to  the  Levites.  So  too 
P :  "  and  to  teach  the  children  of  Israel  all  the  statutes  which 
the  Lord  hath  spoken  unto  them  by  the  hand  of  Moses  "  (Lev. 
X.  11;  cp.  xiv.  54r-57;  xv.  31-33,  etc.).  The  contents  of  much 
of  the  legislation  confirm  this.  It  must  be  obvious  that  the  de- 
tails about  leprosy,  sacrificial  procedure,  priestly  duties,  etc., 
are  too  complicated  and  technical,  and  also  had  too  little  bear- 
ing on  the  everyday  tasks  of  the  ordinary  Israelite,  for  it  to 
have  been  possible  to  put  them  into  operation  without  the 
assistance  of  a  specially  trained  class.  It  follows  that  no  ar- 
gument about  literary  use  could  be  decisive  on  the  question  of 


^16  Essays  in  Penfateuchal  Criticism. 

the  date  and  authorship  of  this  legislation.  Further,  when 
Wellhausen  speaks  of  P  as  "a  law-book  intended  for  the 
whole  community"  (p.  53),  he  merely  contradicts  all  the  data 
of  P  itself.  Given  the  fact  that  large  portions  of  P  are  pro- 
fessedly not  intended  for  direct  general  use,  and  that  other 
large  portions  are  connected  with  these  by  similarity  of  style 
and  material,  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  the  reasons  for  the  pecu- 
liar phenomena  of  this  legislation.  Leaving  out  of  account  mi- 
nor divisions,  three  main  groups  of  laws  are  to  be  distinguished 
in  the  Pentateuch.  First,  there  is  law  designed,  as  appears 
from  its  style,  to  be  memorized.  Secondly,  we  have  Deuter- 
onomy, the  bulk  of  which  was  delivered  in  the  first  instance  in 
the  form  of  speeches.  This  was  intended  for  septennial  read- 
ing to  the  whole  people,  and  style  and  contents  are  for  the 
most  part  colored  by  these  facts.  Thirdly,  we  have  the  bulk 
of  P  —  matters  of  procedure  at  the  religious  capital,  details 
relating  to  the  organization  of  the  priestly  tribe,  matters  in 
which  the  assistance  of  a  specially  trained  class  would  have  to 
be  invoked. 

All  this  presents  not  the  slightest  difficulty  ;^  but  in  view  of 
some  of  the  arguments  used  it  may  be  well  to  explain  one  or 
two  points  shortly. 

The  charge  of  the  calendar  is  a  technical  duty  which  fell  to 
the  priesthood  in  ancient  Rome  as  well  as  in  ancient  Israel. 
Hence  it  is  easy  to  see  why  elaborate  dates  are  given  in  the 
portions  referred  to  P,  while  in  the  legislation  intended  for 
general  currency  more  summary  and  popular  methods  were 
adopted.  Further,  the  object  alike  in  Exodus  and  Deuter- 
onomy excludes  the  idea  of  a  full  calendar.  Exodus  gives 
merely  a  terse  summary  of  the  principal  new  Mosaic  festivals, 

*  See  especially  the  Princeton  Theological  Review,  April  and  Octo- 
ber, 1907. 


Wellhausen's  Prolegomena.  217 

etc.,  that  affected  the  hfe  of  the  ordmary  peasant.  He 
would  learn  details  of  date  from  the  priesthood.  Deuteronomy 
is  concerned  with  the  creation  and  use  of  a  religious  capital, 
and  therefore  emphasizes  this  aspect  of  the  pilgrimage  festi- 
vals. 

The  other  point  is  more  important.  Great  stress  is  laid  on 
prophetic  denunciations  of  sacrifice,  and  it  is  said  that  the 
priestly  teachings  known  to  the  prophets  were  concerned  with 
righteousness  rather  than  ritual.  In  weighing  such  arguments 
it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  some  of  the  matters  we  have 
already  considered.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  much  of  P  is 
mere  procedure;  and,  assuming  that  the  various  sacrifices  at 
the  temple  were  performed  in  a  manner  substantially  agreeing 
with  its  requirements,  there  is  really  no  reason  why  the  proph- 
ets should  have  thundered  on  the  subject.^  So  too  with  other 
provisions.  We  know  from  Deuteronomy  that  there  were 
teachings  relating  to  leprosy :  yet  the  prophets  never  denounce 
the  priestly  teaching  on  the  ground  that  it  fails  to  deal  with 
this  matter,  which  ex  hypothesi  was  known  in  the  time  of,  say, 
Jeremiah.  Further,  it  is  possible  to  force  on  the  words  of  the 
prophets  a  meaning  that  was  never  intended.  For  example, 
Jeremiah  says :  "  For  I  said  nought  unto  your  fathers,  and 
commanded  them  nought,  in  the  day  that  I  brought  them  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt-offerings  or  sacrifices  " 
(vii.  22).  If  this  is  to  be  pressed  in  its  most  literal  meaning, 
we  must  infer  that  Jeremiah  was  unacquainted  with  the  laws 
of  Deuteronomy  and  JE,  for  these  contain  such  commands. 
No  man  with  a  balanced  mind  would  hesitate  to  use  such  lan- 
guage if  no  grave  scandals  were  connected  with  the  sacrificial 
procedure  of  his  day.    But  there  is  another  aspect  to  the  mat- 

*  Cp.,  however,  Zephaniah  iii.  4 :  "  her  priests  have  profaned  the 
sanctuary,  they  have  done  violence  to  the  law."  This  may  possibly 
refer  to  something  in  connection  with  ritual. 


218  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

ter.  According  to  the  Jewish  rabbis  the  most  important  chap- 
ter of  the  Pentateuch  is  Leviticus  xix.  Anybody  who  will  be 
at  the  pains  of  reading  that  passage  will  see  why  it  has  ob- 
tained this  distinction.  That  chapter  belongs  to  P^  and  is 
incorporated  in  P.  It  is  clear  from  the  superscription  and  the 
form  that  it  was  meant  to  be  known  to  the  whole  people.  If 
we  may  assume  that  this  and  kindred  passages  were  intended 
to  be  taught  by  the  priests  to  all  and  sundry,  the  expressions 
of.  the  prophets  become  easily  intelligible. 

One  thing  more.  In  a  footnote  on  page  59,  Wellhausen 
writes : — 

"  That  the  priests  were  not  mere  teachers  of  law  aud  morals,  but 
also  gave  ritual  instruction  (e.g.,  regarding  cleanness  and  unclean- 
ness),  is  of  course  not  denied  by  this.  All  that  is  asserted  is  that 
in  pre-exilian  antiquity  the  priests'  own  praxis  (at  the  altar)  never 
constituted  the  contents  of  the  Torah,  but  that  their  Torah  always 
consisted  of  instructions  to  the  laity." 

What  he  has  failed  to  see  is  that  there  would  be  no  object  in 
teaching  the  laity  the  praxis  of  the  priests  at  the  altar,  and 
also  that  we  have  absolutely  no  information  as  to  whether 
the  rules  governing  their  practice  were  or  were  not  included 
in  their  "  torah."  On  the  first  point  our  only  information  is 
afforded  by  the  passage  of  Samuel  where  we  hear  of  the  sin 
of  Eli's  sons.  That  is  not  sufficient  to  ground  any  theory. 
No  doubt  in  ordinary  cases  the  priest  performed  his  task 
correctly,  and  was  thought  to  do  so  by  laymen.  The  second 
point  is  equally  important.  Our  historical  information  as  to 
the  priestly  teaching  is  entirely  derived  from  cases  where  it 
came  into  contact  with  the  life  of  the  people.  It  follows,  of 
necessity,  that  we  cannot  say  from  the  scanty  notices  in  his- 
tory and  prophecy  what  doctrines  may  have  regulated  the 
practice  of  the  priests  in  their  own  ritual  functions.  Matters 
internal  to  the  priesthood  were  not  originally  intended  for 
general  publication,  nor  did  they  concern  the  subjects  which 


Wellhausens  Prolegomena.  219 

form  the  themes  of  the  prophets.  On  examination,  the  whole 
of  this  critical  argument  is  found  to  be  valueless.  The  con- 
duct of  Ezra  in  reading  sections  of  the  law  (other  than 
Deuteronomy)  to  the  whole  people  proceeds  from  a  funda- 
mentally different  theory  from  that  expressed  in  the  Law  it- 
self. The  bulk  of  P  was  professedly  only  intended  to  reach 
the  people  mediately  —  through  the  teaching  of  the  priests; 
and  Ezra's  innovation  was  in  direct  conflict  with  the  original 
intention  of  the  legislation. 

The  whole  of  the  preceding  inquiry  may  be  summed  up 
shortly  in  the  following  statement:  From  the  days  of  Moses 
onwards  there  was  a  triple  system  of  sacrifice  —  customary 
individual  offerings,  statutory  individual  offerings,  statutory 
national  offerings.  The  failure  to,  recognize  this  has  been  the 
source  of  endless  trouble.  Combined  with  a  complete  disre- 
gard of  the  most  elementary  canons  of  scientific  research,  a 
constant  tendency  to  pit  verse  against  verse  without  ever  con- 
sidering the  legislation  as  a  unity,  and  an  extraordinary 
capacity  for  making  blunders  in  the  minutiae  of  legal  and 
historical  research,  it  has  enabled  Wellhausen  to  put  forward 
a  reconstruction  of  the  history  which  will  not  bear  investiga- 
tion on  a  single  point.  On  the  other  hand,  some  slight  coloring 
has  been  lent  to  the  theory  by  certain  facts  which,  when  more 
closely  examined,  are  seen  not  to  support  it.  It  turns  out 
that  P  was  not  in  common  literary  use  before  Ezra,  but  also 
that  P  was  never  intended  for  common  literary  use:  and  its 
subsequent  influence  on  the  literature  merely  shows  that  a 
late  age  misunderstood  the  Mosaic  provisions.  Similarly  Deu- 
teronomy was  interpreted  as  forbidding  all  sacrifice  save  at  Je- 
rusalem; though  when  its  provisions  are  carefully  scrutinized 
it  appears  that  they  bear  no  such  meaning.  The  influence  of 
Deuteronomy  on  the  literature  finds  its  natural  explanation  in 


220  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

the  narrative  of  the  rediscovery  of  the  book  of  the  Law  in  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  but  this  proves  nothing-  as  to  date  or  author- 
ship. 

A  strange  new  argument  has  lately  been  put  forward  in 
favor  of  the  Wellhausen  theory  by  Professor  Noldeke.^  He 
says  with  great  truth  that  the  Pentateuch  recognizes  only  one 
temple.  But  the  Elephantine  papyri  have  shown  us  a  Jewish 
community  in  Egypt,  which  in  the  year  405  B.C.,  without  being 
schismatic,  considered  itself  entitled  to  a  local  temple.  Bible 
students  and  jurists  will  be  equally  shocked  at  Professor 
Noldeke's  exhaustive  ignorance,  though  for  different  reasons. 
Bible  students  will  wonder  that  a  man  in  the  professor's  posi- 
tion should  ignore  all  the  passages  in  J,  E,  D,  and  the  histori- 
cal books  which  prove  the  absurdity  of  this  argument.  As 
we  have  already  discussed  the  topic  at  length,  we  need  not 
now  labor  it.  Jurists  will  shrug  their  shoulders  over  a  man 
who  presumes  to  write  on  the  history  of  a  law-book  when  he 
is  so  naif  as  not  even  to  know  that  thousands  and  thousands 
of  times  has  human  ingenuity  run  a  coach  and  four  through 
existing  laws.  His  reasoning  would  prove  that  the  Jews  of 
to-day  either  do  not  know  the  Pentateuch  or  else  do  not 
regard  it  as  binding. 

As  the  argument  has  been  advanced,  it  may  be  well  to  ex- 
plain the  causes  that  lie  behind  the  particular  phenomenon 
revealed  by  the  papyri. 

In  the  earliest  period  of  which  we  have  knowledge,  the 
Hebrews  worshiped  God  by  prayer  and  by  sacrifice.  The 
former  means  is  often  overlooked ;  but  there  never  was  a 
time  when  religious  men  were  unable  to  commune  with  a 
higher  Power  by  the  direct  appeal  of  the  heart,  whether  made 
silently  or  voiced  in  speech.  The  prayers  of  Moses,  of  Abra- 
*Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  January,  1908,  p.  203. 


Wcllhausens  Prolegomena.  221 


ham's  servant,  and  of  the  patriarchs  readily  occur  to  the  mind 
and  set  the  matter  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt. 

But,  in  addition  to  prayer,  sacrifice  was  in  use  as  a  means 
of  worship.  All  joint  worship  was  sacrificial.  The  concep- 
tion of  the  house  of  public  prayer  and  public  prayer  alone  — 
the  synagogue  —  had  not  yet  entered  men's  minds :  and  it 
must  be  obvious  to  all  who  read  the  early  books  of  the  Bible 
that  such  a  house  would  not  have  corresponded  to  the  reli- 
gious needs  of  the  age,  even  if  it  had  been  invented.  Piecing 
together  the  available  knowledge,  we  may  perhaps  hold  that 
sacrifice  was  offered  at  certain  stated  times,  such  as  new 
moon,  as  well  as  on  many  solemn  or  joyous  occasions  of 
chance  occurrence.  Then  came  the  Exodus ;  and  from  that 
time  onwards  we  find  a  peculiar,  view  expressed  most  defi- 
nitely, viz.  that  the  God  of  Israel  could  only  be  worshiped 
sacrificially  in  the  national  territory.  It  may  be  that  this 
view  was  not  altogether  novel,  but  we  have  no  sufficient  ma- 
terials to  enable  us  to  decide  that  question.  Certain  it  is  that 
the  view  predominates  throughout  the  Mosaic  legislation  to 
such  an  extent  that  no  alternative  is  even  considered.  The 
legislation  —  the  whole  legislation  —  postulates  the  approach- 
ing occupation  of  national  territory.  Here  are  some  of  the 
expressions  used :  "  These  are  the  statutes  and  the  judgments, 
which  ye  shall  observe  to  do  in  the  land,  which  the  Lord  .  .  . 
hath  given  thee  to  possess  it"  (Deut.  xii.  1);  "In  all  the 
place  where  I  record  My  Name,  I  will  come  unto  thee  and  I 
will  bless  thee  "  (Ex.  xx.  24)  ;  "  Three  times  in  the  year  shall 
all  thy  males  appear  before  the  Lord  God,  the  God  of  Israel 
.  ,  .  neither  shall  any  man  desire  thy  land,  when  thou  goest 
up  to  appear  before  the  Lord  thy  God  three  times  in  the  year  " 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  23  f.).  Always  and  invariably  the  legislation  is 
for  a  people  that  will  possess  and  be  settled  in  the  national 


22^  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

territory,  and  nowhere  else.^  No  provision  whatever  is  made 
for  the  possibiHty  that  an  IsraeHte  may  sojourn  definitively 
in  any  land  but  his  own.  The  only  case  contemplated  (apart 
from  national  exile)  is  a  brief  absence:  and  that  is  dealt  with 
in  a  section  which  with  unconscious  irony  the  critics  assign 
to  the  post-exilic  P.  It  is  enacted  that  if  an  Israelite  be  "  on 
a  journey  afar  off  "  at  the  date  of  Passover,  he  is  to  keep  it 
one  month  later  (Num.  ix.  10).  With  regard  to  the  other 
pilgrimage  festivals,  and  the  sacrificial  worship  which,  as  we 
know  from  the  historical  books,  was  offered  on  sundry  occa- 
sions, no  provision  whatever  is  made  for  the  case  of  even  a 
temporary  absence  —  far  less  for  permanent  residence  in  a 
foreign  land  at  such  a  distance  from  the  religious  capital  as 
would  make  even  the  pilgrimages  altogether  impossible.  A 
fortiori,  the  legislation  never  contemplates  a  period  in  which 
the  nation  should  possess  no  territory  at  all  and  should  yet 
sacrifice  to  its  God. 

The  passages  in  the  speeches  of  Deuteronomy  where  it  is 
said  that  the  Israelites  in  captivity  will  serve  ''  other  gods  " 
(iv.  28;  xxviii.  36,  64)  may  be  mere  prophecies  of  apostacy, 
and  in  any  case  scarcely  assist  our  present  inquiry.  It  is  in- 
conceivable that  a  Jeremiah  or  an  Ezekiel  should  have  ap- 
proved of  the  worship  of  other  gods  by  Jews  in  exile,  though 
the  former  prophet  contemplates  this  result  as  certain  to  follow 
(Jer.  xvi.  13). 

In  the   age   succeeding   Moses   the   matter  therefore   stood 

thus :  The  Israelites  required  sacrificial  worship,  and  could  not 

even  conceive  a  form  of  religion  which  should  exist  entirely 

*This  is  alone  sufficient  to  dispose  of  the  whole  theory  of  an  ex- 
ilic or  post-exilic  P.  That  legislation  given  to  a  people  whose  cen- 
ter of  gravity  vvas  in  Babylonia  should  make  no  provision  for  an 
absence  from  Canaan  exceeding  a  month  or  two  in  duration  is  a 
proposition  which  could  be  adopted  only  by  men  who  have  not  the 
least  practical  acquaintance  with  the  working  of  institutions. 


Wellhausen's  Prolegomena.  223 

without  sacrifice.  They  were  in  the  habit  of  meeting  this  need 
partly  by  local  sacrifices  and  partly  by  pilgrimages  to  the 
religious  center.  Both  methods  were  legal  within  certain 
limits.  But  no  method  existed  whereby  an  Israelite  might 
lawfully  sacrifice  to  the  God  of  Israel  save  in  the  national  ter- 
ritory, nor  was  such  a  sacrifice  even  considered  possible.  It 
must  be  noticed  that  as  yet  no  practical  problem  had  arisen  as 
a  consequence  of  this  state  of  affairs,  for  all  those  who  wor- 
shiped Israel's  God  resided  normally  and  permanently  wnthin 
Israel's  territory. 

Our  first  information  as  to  the  state  of  affairs  that  might 
arise  in  the  case  of  an  Israelite  who  was  resident  outside  the 
national  territory  is  afforded  by  a  remark  of  David's :  "  They 
have  driven  me  out  this  day  that  I  should  not  cleave  unto  the 
inheritance  of  the  Lord,  saying,  Go,  serve  other  gods"  (1 
Sam.  xxvi.  19).  Consideration  of  this  passage  brings  out  two 
points:  David's  interlocutors  do  not  even  contemplate  the 
possibility  of  his  ceasing  to  sacrifice.  He  will  infallibly  serve 
some  god  or  other.  Life  without  sacrificial  worship  is  incon- 
ceivable. And  it  is  equally  inconceivable  that  this  sacrifice 
could  be  paid  to  the  Lord  outside  His  inheritance.  A  Sam- 
uel or  an  Elijah  would  probably  not  have  concurred  in  either 
branch  of  the  popular  opinion:  but  for  the  purposes  of  trac- 
ing the  history  of  the  interpretation  of  the  Law  we  must  leave 
out  of  account  the  possible  views  of  an  enlightened  minority. 

The  next  stage  is  that  marked  by  Naaman,  who  asks  for 
Israelitish  earth  in  order  that  he  may  sacrifice  to  Israel's  God 
when  residing  in  Syria.  Here  we  see  the  first  definite  attempt 
to  grapple  with  the  difficulty  which  must  necessarily  arise 
when  a  worshiper  of  Israel's  God  desires  to  worship  Him  by 
means  of  some  overt  act  outside  Canaan.  But  as  yet  it  is  the 
solution  of  an  individual,  and  it  is  based  on  a  legal  fiction. 


224  Essays  in  Pentatenchal  Criticism. 

Hosea  speaking  before  the  destruction  of  the  Northern 
kingdom  is  our  next  witness :  "For  the  children  of  Israel 
shall  abide  many  days  without  king,  and  without  prince,  and 
without  sacrifice,  and  without  ephod  or  teraphim :  afterward 
shall  the  children  of  Israel  return,  and  seek  the  Lord  their 
God,  and  David  their  king  "  (iii.  4  f.).  The  passage  has  given 
rise  to  many  disputes.  To  the  present  writer  it  appears  that 
Hosea  condemned  all  the  institutions  specified,  regarding  the 
Northern  kingdom  and  its  cult  with  disfavor  while  treating 
the  line  of  David  as  alone  legitimate.  But  one  thing  will  be 
generally  admitted,  even  by  those  who  do  not  concur  in  this 
view.  Hosea  does  not  contemplate  the  possibility  of  oflfering 
sacrifices  of  the  same  kind  outside  the  national  territory  as 
within  it.  Whether  he  contemplates  any  sacrifice  as  possible 
abroad  must  depend  on  the  view  taken  of  ix.  3  and  4 :  "  They 
shall  not  dwell  in  the  Lord's  land ;  but  Ephraim  shall  return 
to  Egypt,  and  they  shall  eat  unclean  food  in  Assyria.  They 
shall  not  pour  out  wine  to  the  Lord,  neither  shall  they  be 
pleasing  unto  him :  their  sacrifices  shall  be  unto  them  as  the 
bread  of  mourners ;  all  that  eat  thereof  shall  be  polluted :  for 
their  bread  shall  be  for  their  appetite;  it  shall  not  come  into 
the  house  of  the  Lord.'"  This  may  be  interpreted  to  mean 
either  that  they  will  ofifer  no  sacrifice  at  all,  or  else  that  they 
will  purport  to  sacrifice,  but  that  their  sacrifice,  at  any  rate 
in  some  cases,  will  not  be  efficacious  because  it  is  not  offered 
in  God's  land.  And  then  he  asks  in  the  next  verse  a  question 
that  is  obviously  unanswerable :  "  What  will  ye  do  in  the  day 
of  solemn  assembly,  and  in  the  day  of  the  feast  of  the  Lord?" 
That  question  goes  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  It  shows  that 
as  yet  the  problem  of  maintaining  the  national  worship  outside 
the  national  territory  had  found  no  adequate  solution.  The 
position  is  still  substantially    that    postulated  by  the  Mosaic 


W ellhausen' s  Prolegomena.  225 

legislation  —  sacrificial  worship  to  the  national  God  on  the 
national  territory,  and  not  elsewhere.^  We  pass  next  to 
Isaiah.  It  is  unnecessary  to  transcribe  the  famous  passage  of 
the  nineteenth  chapter  in  which  the  prophet  foretells  the 
knowledge  of  God  by  the  Egyptians  and  the  joint  worship 
of  Egypt  and  Assyria.  The  horizons  are  widening;  and  it  is 
impossible  to  say  whether  Isaiah  would  have  clung  to  the  old 
rule  that  sacrificial  worship  could  be  offered  only  in  Canaan, 
had  some  colony  of  Jews  living  far  off  asked  his  advice.  At 
the  same  time  this  chapter  does  not  directly  answer  our  ques- 
tion. It  is  a  vision  of  what  is  to  happen  at  some  future  date, 
not  an  expression  of  opinion  as  to  what  is  legitimate  in  the 
present.  Jeremiah,  on  the  other  hand,  foretells  that  in  exile 
the  Israelites  "  shall  serve  other  gods  day  and  night ;  for  I 
will  show  you  no  favor"  (xvi.  13). 

At  this  point  our  information  fails  us  altogether.  No 
further  light  is  thrown  by  the  contemporary  prophets  on  the 
problems  of  worship  in  foreign  lands.  Yet  the  exiles  must 
have  found  one  or  more  solutions.  Two  questions  confronted 
them:  (1)  How  was  the  ordinary  local  worship  to  be  main- 
tained or  replaced?  (2)  "What  will  ye  do  in  the  day  of 
solemn  assembly,  and  in  the  day  of  the  feast  of  the  Lord?" 
The  solution  ultimately  adopted  by  Judaism  is  familiar  to  all. 
The  synagogue  was  invented,  and  a  service  of  prayer  replaced 
all  the  old  sacrifices:  but  such  a  solution  could  not  have  been 
adopted  until  the  course  of  history  had  prepared  the  ground 
for  it.  It  is  not  clear  that  such  a  course  would  have  been  any 
more  conceivable  to  the  contemporaries  of  Jeremiah  than  it 
was  to  Hosea.    Nor  can  any  appeal  be  made  to  the  Law :  for 

*The  only  real  modification  that  had  been  introduced  into  the  Mo- 
saic system  was  that  made  by  Jeroboam  in  deference  to  political 
exigencies  (1  Kings  xii.  2Gff.)  ;  but  this  did  not  touch  the  problem 
of  sacrifice  abroad. 


226  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 

it  never  contemplates  the  public  worship  of  God  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  exile.  Contemplating  an  entirely  different  set  of 
conditions,  it  could,  like  any  other  law,  be  made  to  bear  what- 
ever interpretation  was  most  in  harmony  with  the  needs  of  the 
age.  It  must  be  remembered  that  every  law  that  is  unalter- 
able invariably  leads  to  devices  that  enable  men  to  change  or 
repeal  it  while  professing  to  maintain  it  intact.  Some  of  these 
have  been  discussed  by  Sir  Henry  Maine ;  ^  and  it  is  obvious 
that  so  far  back  as  the  time  of  Elisha,  Naaman  was  as  good 
at  practising  legal  fictions  as  any  lawyer  of  any  country  or  age. 
When  the  exile  made  the  most  fundamental  change  possible 
in  the  conditions  contemplated  by  the  Law,  three  courses  only 
were  possible:  (1)  to  abandon  the  public  worship  of  Israel's 
God  altogether;  (2)  to  adopt  a  purely  non-sacrificial  worship; 
or  (3)  to  adapt  the  sacrificial  service  to  the  changed  needs 
of  the  age.  The  first  solution,  though  perhaps  contemplated  by 
Jeremiah,^  was  out  of  the  question,  if  Judaism  was  to  be  saved ; 
the  second  had  not  yet  occurred  to  men's  minds  and  would 
not  yet  have  satisfied  their  wants:  the  papyri  prove  that  the 
third  found  favor  for  some  time,  at  any  rate  in  one  place. 
That  was  how  for  a  while  men  answered  Hosea's  question 
"  What  will  ye  do  in  the  day  of  solemn  assembly  and  in  the 
day  of  the  feast  of  the  Lord  ?'* 

*  See  his  Ancient  Law. 

'Jeremiah's  words  might,  however,  mean  that  the  worship  of  the 
gods  was  additional  or  subsequent  to  an  attempt  to  serve  the  God 
of  Israel  abroad. 


INDEX  I. 


PRINCIPAL  PASSAGES    REFERRED   TO 


G 

ENESIS 

viii.  15 

14,39 

viii.  20 

31,39 

i.  l-iii.24 

28 

viii.  21 

13,39 

ii.-iii. 

40 

ix. 

43 

ii.  4-iii.  24 

28 

ix.  1 

39 

ii.  4 

13,21 

,26,28 

ix.8 

39 

ii.  5 

26 

ix.  12 

13,39 

ii.  7 

26 

ix.  16 

32 

ii.  8 

26 

ix.  17 

39 

ii.  9 

29 

ix.  27 

3 

ii.l5 

29 

X.  19 

42,  43 

ii.  16 

29 

xii.8 

5,186 

ii.  18 

29,36 

xii.  11 

62 

ii.  19 

29 

xii.  17 

32 

ii.  21 

29,36 

xiii.  4 

5 

ii.  22 

15 

,29,36 

xiii.  10 

32,  43 

iii.  1 

6,  8, 15 

,  26.  36 

xiii.  13 

32 

iii.  3 

8 

xiii.  14 

32 

iii.  5 

8 

xiii.  18 

5.  186 

iii.  8 

29,30 

xiv.  18 

173  n. 

iii.  9 
iii.  13 

29 
29 

xiv.  22 

XV.  1 

5, 18,  32 

7 

7, 18,  32,  37 

32 

iii.  14 
iii.  21 

29 
29 

XV.  2 

XV.  4 

iii.  22 

15, 

,26,36 

XV.  6 

32 

iii.  23 
iv.  1 

16, 

26,36 
.  17,  31 

XV.  7 
XV.  8 

5,32,41,45,46 
37 

iv.  3 

31 

XV.  18 

33 

iv.  4 

31 

xvi.  1 

9 

iv.9 

31 

xvi.  2 

5,  9 

iv.  16 

31 

xvi.  5 

33 

iv.  25 
iv.  26 

5,8,: 

8 
16, 186 

xvi.  11 
xvii. 

14, 17,  23  n.,  33 

40 

V.  22 

36 

xvii.  1 

5,7,40 

V.  29 

9 

xvii.  15 

37,40 

vi.  5 

36 

xvii.  18 

40 

vi.  6 

31 

xvii.  19     • 

40 

vi.  7 

31 

xviii.  1 

33 

vi.  9-xi.  17 

38 

xviii.  7 

176 

vi.  11 

38 

xviii.  14 

5,33,45 

vi.  12 

38 

xviii.  19 

45 

vi.  13 

36,38 

xviii.  33 

37 

vi.  22 

38 

xix.  2 

23  n. 

vii.  1 

14, 

36,39 

xix.  13 

5 

vii.  5 

39 

xix.  17-19 

66 

vii.  9 

8, 13, 14, 

36,39 

xix.  29 

9,  33,  37,  40 

vii.  16 

37,39 

XX.  18 

9,33 

227 


228 


Index  I. 


xxi.  1 
xxi.  2 
xxi.  4 
xxi.  17 
xxi.  33 
xxii.  11 
xxii.  14-18 
xxii.  15 
xxii.  16 
xxiii. 
xxiv.  31 
xxv.  21 
xxvi.  24 
xxvi.  28 
xxvii.  7 
xxvii.  9-14 
xxvii.  14 
xxviii.  4 
xxviii.  13 
xxviii.  21 
XXX.  22 
XXX.  24 
XXX.  27 
xxxi.  3 
xxxi.  5 
xxxi.  7 
xxxi.  9 
xxxi.  16 
xxxi.  23 
xxxi.  42 
xxxi.  49 
xxxi.  53 
xxxi.  54 
xxxii.  29  (28)  » 
xxxii.  30  (29) 
xxxii.  31  (30) 
xxxiii.  5 
xxxiii.  10 
xxxiii.  11 
xxxiii.  20 
xxxiv.  25 
XXXV.  9 
XXXV.  10 

XXXV.  11 

xxxviii.  7 
xxxviii.  10 
xxxix.  3 
xxxix.  9 
xliii.  16 
xliii.  23 
xliii.  29 
xliv.  16 


7 

34,40 

34,40 

34 

5 

7,9 

9 

37  71. 

45 

40 

5 

34 

8,45 

6 

7 

176 

185 

37,40 

5, 19,  34,  42,  45  f. 

9 

37 

16,17,34 

17,34 

9 

9 

37  n. 

37  n. 

38  n. 
136 

18,34 

34 

15, 19,  34 

186 

6.8 

9,52 

9 

6,8 

8 

6.8 

186 

43,44 

35,37 

37,  40 

5 

35 

35 

6 

8 

176 

6,8 

6,8 

6,8 


^  Inadvertently  printed  on  page 
8  as  XXX.  29  (28). 


xlv.  5 
xlv.  7 
xlv.  9 
xlv.  10 
xlv.  18 
xlvi.  28 
xlvii.  11 
xlvii.  27 
xlviii.  2 
xlviii.  15 
xlix.  18 
1.24 


i.  7 
i.  9 

i.  15ff. 
i.  20 
ii. 

ii.  ]5f. 
ii.  16 
ii.  21  f. 
iii. 
iii.  1 
iii.  4 
iii.  6 
iii.  8 
iii.  12 
iii.  14 
iii.  15 
iii.  16 
iii.  18 
iii.  19  f. 
iii.  19 
iii.  21,  22 
iii.  22 
iv.  1-3 
iv.  2  f. 
iv.  11 
iv.  13-16 
iv.  17 
iv.  18f. 
iv.  20 
iv.  24-26 
iv.  25 
iv.  26 
iv.  30 
V.  1 
V.  3 
V.  4 
V.  5 
V.  17 
V.  20 
vi.  2-8 


38  n. 

38  n. 

6,8 

57  ff. 

57 

57  f. 

57 

57  f. 

62  f. 

8,18,35 

6n. 

6,8 


Exodus 


161 

159 

160 

159 

61 

60 

60 

60 

55.  56 

19,35,60.61 

15,  35 

55 

159 

35,  55,  60,  64,  65 

52 

53 

53 

53  64 

58  n. 

79 

58  f. 

57 

71 

71 

56 

65 

70,  71,  74  f. 

60 

60,  61,  70.  71 

61  f. 

61,63 

63 

71 

64,65 

64 

64 

159 

14 

64 

4,  5,  53,  54,  55,  58 


Index  I. 


229 


vi.2 
vi.  3 

vii.  1  f. 

vii.  2-7 

vii.  8-xi.  10 

vii.  8-13 

vii.  8-12 

vii.  8  f. 

vii.  8 

vii.  9 

vii.  14-25 

vii.  14 

vii.  15 

vii.  16 

vii.  17 

vii.  19,  20 

vii.  19 

vi?.  20 

vii.  22 

vii.  25 

vii.  26-viii.  11  (viii. 

vii.  26  (viii.  1) 

viii.  1-3  (5-7) 

viii.  4  (8) 

viii.  5  (9) 

viii.  8  (12) 

viii.  11  (15) 

viii.  12-15  (16-19) 

viii.  16-28  (20-32) 

viii.  16  (20) 

viii.  18  (22) 

viii.  21  (25) 

viii.  22  (26) 

viii.  23  (27) 

viii.  24  (28) 

viii.  25  (29) 

ix-.  1-7 

ix.  1  f. 

ix.  6 

ix.  8-12 

ix.  13-35 

ix.  13 

i5f.  19 

ix.  22 

ix.  23 

!x.  25 

ix.  26 

ix-.  27 

ix*.  28 

ix.  29 

ix.  33 

X.  1-20 

X.3 

X.  7 

X.8 


1-15) 


15 
7,  41  f.,  44,  51 
73 
64,65 
73,  79  ff. 
70,73 
73 
66 
59,79 
73 
72 
75 
71,  75 
64 
77 
73 
77 
70,74 
73 
75 
72 
64 
73 
64,65 
65 
64,65 
73 
72,73 
72 
64 
57,59 
64,65 
57  f. 
64 
65 
65 
72 
64 
76 
72,73,74 
72 
64 
76 
74.76 
70,74 
76 
57,59 
64,65 
64 
74 
65,74 
72 
64 
65 
64 


X.  11 
X.  12 
X.  13 
X.  16 
X.  17 
X.  18 
X.  21-27 
X.  21-23 
X.  21 
X.  22 
X.  28  t 
xi.  2  f. 
xi.  2 
xi.  5 
xi.  10 
xii.  1  f. 
xii.  13 
xii.  21-27 
xii.  29 
xii.  31 
xii.  37 
xii.  48 
xiii.  3-16 
xtii.  13 
xiii.  17 
xiii.  21 
xiii.  22 
xiv.  7 
xiv.  19  f. 
xiv.  20 

XV. 

XV.  25,  26 
XV.  27 
xvi. 
xvi.  1 
xvi.  2-36 
xvi.  4 
xvi.  6-10 
xvi.  6-8 
xvi.  7 
xvi.  9-12 
xvi.  9 
xvi.  10 
xvi.  1 1  f. 
xvi.  15-30 
xvi.  15 
xvi.  31 
xvi.  32 
xvi.  33  f. 
xvi.  33 
xvi.  34 
xvii. 
xvii.  5,  6 
xvii.  8-16 
xvii.  8 


64 

74 
70,74 
64,65 
65 
65 
72 
59,75 
74 
74 
75 
59 
57 
76 
73 
208 
57 
59 
76 
64 
158, 160 
208 
81 
184  n. 
82 
82  f..  88 
83, 106 
160 
83 
84 
94 
103 
160 
103, 109 
94 
95 
103,109 
85 
90  n. 
90  n. 
90  n. 
84 
84,  85,  90  n. 
103 
104 
103  f. 
103  f. 
104 
84 
86 
84 
94.104, 1  OS 
105 
105  f. 
106 


230 


Index  I. 


xviii. 

98, 106, 160 

xxxiii.  3 

111 

xviii.  1 

60 

xxxiii.  6 

108 

xviii.  2  ff. 

63 

xxxiii.  7-11    83 

n.,  89  n.,  91,  93,  94, 

xviii.  2-4 

61 

106  f. 

xviii.  2 

60 

xxxiii.  7  f. 

82,93,94 

xviii.  5  f. 

60,62 

xxxiii.  7 

66,69,97,99 

xviii.  5 

98 

xxxiii.  8  ff. 

99 

xviii.  6 

62  f. 

xxxiii.  9 

87 

xviii.  7 

62 

xxxiii.  11 

65,  66,  69, 105 

xviii.  9 

60 

xxxiii.  12-23 

108  f. 

xviii.  10 

60 

xxxiii.  12 

108,111 

xviii.  13 

99 

xxxiii.  18 

90 

xviii.  14 

99 

xxxiii.  22 

90 

xviii.  16 

98 

xxxiv.  1-4 

152 

xix.  9 

87.  88  f. 

xxxiv.  4 

148 

xix.  16 

87,  88  f. 

xxxiv.  5 

87 

xix.  24 

107 

xxxiv.  6-9 

108 

xix.  25 

107 

xxxiv.  9 

149 

XX.  21 

87 

xxxiv.  20 

194 

XX.  24-26         180, 

,  183  f.,  191, 194  f.. 

xxxiv.  22 

183 

197 

xxxiv.  23  f . 

160,  221 

XX.  24                 175, 184  ff.,  192.  221 

xxxiv.  23 

183 

XX.  26 

180  n. 

xxxiv.  24 

190 

xxi.6 

187  n. 

xxxiv.  25 

194  f. 

xxi.  14 

184 

xxxiv.  26 

183  f.,  210 

xxi.  37  (xxii.  1) 

176.185 

xxxiv.  28 

148,149,152 

xxii.8  (9) 

187  n. 

xxxiv.  29  f . 

100 

xxii.  29  (30) 

184  n. 

xxxv.-xl. 

93,153 

xyiii.15 

194 

XXXV.  22-24 

163 

xxiii.  17 

160 

xxxvi. 

163 

xxin.19 

183  f.,  210 

xxxvi.  2  f. 

152 

xxin'.  ?0  f. 

48 

xxxvii.  1 

152 

xxni.  29  f. 

160 

xxxviii.  24-31 

163 

xxiv.  1 

96  n. 

xxxviii.  25  f. 

161,163 

xxiv.  14 

106 

xl.  20  ff. 

93 

xyiv.  15 

87 

xl.  34  ff. 

82,84 

xxv.-xxx. 

93 

xl.  34 

87 

XXV.  3 
XXV.  22 

163 
100,107 

Leviticus 

xxvii. 

181 

i.5 

206  n. 

xxviii.  42  f. 

180  n. 

ii.  11-13 

209 

xxix.  43 

90 

ii.  11 

214 

XXX.  11-16 

164 

ii.  14-16 

210 

xxx.  16 

1 54  n. 

iii. 

211 

xyvii  -yxxiv. 

110,148,149 

vi  21  (28) 

212 

xxxii.  1  ff. 

148 

vii.  22-27 

177 

xxxM. 11-13 

149 

viii.  4 

161 

xxvii.  14 

151 

X.  11 

215 

xxyiM  ?0 

151 

xiv.  54-57 

215 

xx-^-.  25-29 

107  f. 

XV.  31-33 

215 

xyvii  ?R 

160 

xvi.  2 

89.101 

xyvii  30-34 

108 

xvii. 

177, 196 

xyyii.  31  f. 

149 

xvii.  1-7 

193 

xxyii.  31 

148.151 

xvii.  7 

193  71. 

xxxii.  35 

107  f. 

xviii.  21 

48 

Index  I. 


231 


XIX. 

xix.  12 
XX.  3 
xxi.  6 
xxi.  14 
xxiii. 

xxiii.  10-14 
xxiii.  10  f. 
xxiv.  5-9 
xxvi.  1,  30 


Numbers 


i.-iv. 
i.  f. 

21 

23 

25 

27 

33 
i.  35 
i.  39 
1.46 
ii.  f. 
ii. 
ii.  6 
ii.  11 
ii.  15 
ii.  16 
ii.  17 
ii.  32 
iii. 

lii.  12 
iii.  22 
iii.  43 
V.  9f. 
vi.  19 
ix.  6-14 
ix.  10 
ix.  15  ff. 
ix.  17  ff. 
ix.  17 
x. 

2 

11 

21 

29 

33 

34  ff. 

34 

36 

.1-32 
xi.  1-3 
xi.  4-35 
xi.  4-34 


218 

48 

48 

48 

99  n. 

207 

199  f. 

209 

199  f. 

198 


155 

155, 156 

163 

166, 168 

165 

163 

166 

166 

168 

165 

93 

156 

166 

166 

165 

166 

101  f. 

165 

155 

157 

168 

155 

208  f. 

212 

207  f. 

222 

82 

88 

86 

95,156 

161 

123, 137 

91 

106 

91 

91  f. 

87  f. 

160 

94 

96  n. 

96  n. 

109-113 


xi.  4-10 
xi.  4  ff. 
xi.  4-6 
xi.  6-9 
xi.  10-15 
xi.  10-12 
xi.  13 
xi.  14 


xi.  15 
xi.  16ff. 
xi.  21 
xi.  24-30 
xi.  25 
xi.  26 
xi.  27 
xi.  28 
xi.  30 
xi.  31 
xi.  33,  34 
xi.  35 
xii. 
xii.  1 
xii.  4  ff. 
xii:  4 
xii.  5 
yii.  10 
xii.  16 
xiii.  ff. 
xiii.  f. 
xiii. 
xiii.  2 
xiiM.  3 
xiii.  6 
xiii.  17-20 
xiii.  17 
xin*.  20 
yu\  21  ff. 
xiii.  21 
xiii.  22-24 
yv\.  ?A 
yin*.  26 
yv\  27-31 
yin*.  29 
xiii.  30-yiv. 
yiM.?0ff. 
xin*.  30 
yiii.  32 
xiii.  33 
xiv. 
xiv.  4 
xiv.  6  f. 
xiv.  7 
xiv.  11-24 
xiv.  14 
xiv.  21 


111 

97  n, 

109 

94,95 

108 

110 

111 

112 

110, 112 

96  n.,  112 

158, 160 

91,93,112 

88 

101  f. 

101  f. 

66,  69  f. 

101  f. 

95 

95 

95 

94.130 

60,99 

93 

91, 100  f. 

82,  88, 100  f.,  102 

88,101 

129 

95 

129 

123,130 

139 

129, 139 

142 

139 

139 

129 

140 

139.140 

139 

141 

139 

139 

141 

141 

123.141 

139.141 

139.142 

139 

130,138 

141 

139 

142 

139 

88 

90 


232  Index  I. 


xiv.  23  ff. 

123 

xxi.  13 

124 

xiv.  24 

139 

xxi.  21-25 

134 

xiv.  25 

119, 

123,125 

xxi.  32 

134 

xiv.  26-35 

139 

xxi.  33-35 

134 

xiv.  33 

126 

xxii.  1 

135 

xiv.  38 

139 

xxii.  2-xxiv. 

135 

xiv.  40-43 

123 

xxii.  5 

146 

xiv.  44  f. 

119 

xxii.  20  f. 

146 

xiv.  44 

91 

xxii.  22 

147 

xiv.  45 

122, 129 

xxiii.  10 

160 

XV. 

130 

XXV.  1-3 

135 

XV.  32 

130 

XXV.  9 

135,161 

xvi.-xviii. 

130 

xxvi. 

135. 

155.156,157 

xvi. 

143 

xxvi.  10 

145 

xvi.  3 

144 

xxvi.  47 

168 

xvi.  7 

144 

xxvi.  62 

156 

xvi.    9 

144 

xxvii.  3 

144, 146 

xvi.  13 

144 

xxvii.  13  f. 

137 

xvi.  14 

130 

xxviii.  f. 

199  f.,  202  n.,  207 

xvi.  24 

144,145 

xxviii.  3-8 

201  f. 

xvi.  27 

144,145 

xxviii.  8 

201  f. 

xvii. 

130 

xxviii.  26 

210 

xvii.  14  (xvi.  49) 

161 

xxxi. 

76  f .,  169  ff. 

xvii.  28  (13) 

67 

xxxi.  4  f. 

161 

xviii.  16 

158 

xxxi.  7 

77 

xviii.  22 

67 

xxxi.  18 

99  n.,  170 

xix. 

130,170 

xxxi.  19-24 

170 

XX. 

104, 

,133, 

,137, 

160,161 

xxxi.  25-30 

170 

XX.  1-13 

156 

xxxi.  82-54 

161 

XX.  1            116. 120, 123, 127  f.,  130, 

xxxi.  37-40 

167 

137, 

140 

xxxii. 

126,127,142 

XX.  2-13 

130 

xxxii.  8 

126,139 

XX.  3 

130 

xxxii.  9 

140 

XX.  8  f. 

130 

xxxii.  12 

142 

XX.  12 

123,187 

xxxii.  13 

126 

XX.  14-21 

130 

xxxii.  14 

172  n. 

XX.  14 

117 

xxxii.  19 

172  n. 

XX.  21 

121 

xxxii.  32 

172  n. 

XX.  ?2-vyi.  4 

128 

xxxiii.          116, 117, 126, 136  f.,  147 

XX.  ?2-29 

128, 

130.137 

xxxiii.  18 

127 

XX.  92      121, 

123, 

,125, 

,130. 

136.137 

xxxiii.  80-31 

127  n. 

XX.  23 

123, 

,124, 

,128,129 

xxxiii.  85  f. 

126 

xx.  29 

129. 

134.135 

xxxiii.  36 

127,130 

xxi.  1-3 

121, 

,128, 

,129, 

,130,134 

xxxiii.  87 

124, 127, 

128,130,137 

xxi.  t 

122 

xxxiii.  38  f. 

128 

xxi.  3 

122 

xxxiii.  88 

130, 

133,184,135 

xxi.  4-9 

130 

xxxiii.  40 

122,130 

xxi.  4      120. 

121, 

123, 

125, 

128,129, 

xxxiii.  52 

198 

130, 

134, 

135, 

136 

XXXV.  14 

172  n. 

xxi.  5-9 

134 

xxi.  10-20 

134 

Deuteronomy 

xxi.  10 

128 

xxi.  1 1  ff . 

135 

i.f. 

117 

xxi.  11 

124 

i.3 

134,135 

xxi.  1 2 

124 

i.  19 

123 

Index  I. 


233 


i.  22-25 

123 

xii.  15 

175 

i.  26 

123 

xii.  21 

193 

i.33 

87 

xvi. 

212  w. 

i.  35  f. 

123 

xvi.  3 

214  n. 

i.  37-38 

137 

xvi.  4,  8 

213  f. 

i.37 

123 

xvi.  6 

213 

i.  39 

137 

xvi.  21  f. 

180 

i.40 

123, 125 

xvi.  21 

192, 196 

i.  41-44 

123 

xxi.  10-14 

99  n.,  170 

i.  45 

123 

xxii.  7 

184  n. 

i.  46 

123. 127  f.,  137 

xxiii.  5  (4) 

171n. 

ii.  1 

123, 125, 128, 

,137,138 

xxiv.  8 

215 

ii.  3 

123 

xxiv.  9 

172  n. 

ii.  4-8 

123 

XXV.  17 

112  n. 

ii.4 

128 

xxvi.  1  ff. 

209  n. 

ii.  8  f. 

124 

xxviii.  36 

222 

ii.13f. 

124 

xxviii.  58 

48 

ii.  14 

125. 

,137,138 

xxviii.  64 

222 

ii.  18  ff. 

124 

xxxi.  14f. 

70,  93,  96  f. 

ii.  24 

124 

xxxi.  15 

82 

ii.  26 

135 

xxxi.  19 

66 

iii.4 

134 

xxxii.  50  f. 

137 

iii.  5 

134 

xxxiii.  8 

68 

iii.8 

172  n. 

xxxiii.  10 

68,  215 

iii.  20 

172  n. 

iii.  25 

172  n. 

Joshua 

iii.  26 

137 

iii.  f. 

92 

iv.  21 

137 

iii.  3 

69 

iv.  28 

222 

iii.  6 

69 

ix.  9 

148 

iii.  14 

69 

ix.  14 

149 

iv.  13 

162 

ix.  15-16 

150 

vi. 

92, 161 

ix.  15 

149 

vi.  4-9 

69 

ix.  17 

150 

vi.  12 

69 

ix.  18-20 

150, 

,151,152 

vi.  13 

69 

ix.  21 

150,152 

vi.  20 

69 

ix.  22 

96  n.,  150 

vii. 

161 

ix.  23 

150 

vii.  6 

92 

ix.  24 

150 

viii.  3 

161 

ix.  25-29 

149 

viii.  12 

161 

ix.  25 

150 

viii.  25 

161 

ix.  26-29 

149, 

150,152 

viii.  30  fC. 

193 

X. 

150 

ix.  23 

183  f. 

X.  1-4 

152 

ix.  27 

183  f. 

X.3 

150 

xiv.  6 

142 

X.  6f. 

147 

xiv.  14 

142 

X.  6 

67,68 

xviii.  28 

173 

X.  8f. 

147 

xxi.  4-7 

158 

xi.6 

144 

xxiu 

198 

xi.  10 

171 

xxiv.  5 

65 

xi.  30 
xii. 

172  n. 
195-197 

Judges 

xii.  1 

221 

v.  8 

157 

xii.  9 

190 

vi. 

211 

xii.  13, 14 

194, 197 

vi.l9 

176 

234 


Index  I. 


xi.  16  ff. 

127 

2  Kings 

xi.  17 

117, 

128, 172  n. 

iii.  20 

201,  202 

xiii.  17  1. 

52 

xvi.  15 

200  f. 

xvii.  f. 

190  n. 

xviii.  4 

197  f. 

xviii. 
xix.  10. 11 

158 
173 

xviii.  22 
xxiii.  15 

197  f. 
198 

XX.  2 

158 

XX.  17 

158 

Isaiah 

1   Samuel 

ix.  2 

xix. 

210 
225 

ii. 

205  f. 

xxii.  13 

178  n. 

ii.l 

12 

XXX.  27 

48 

ii.  15-17 

211 

xxxvi.  7 

198 

ii.  16 

191 

1.10 

48 

ii.  27-36 

189 

vi.l9 

166 

Jeremiah 

viii.  13 

178  n. 

vii.  12 

189 

ix.  12-25 

190  f. 

vii.  22 

217 

X.  5. 13 

190  f. 

xvi.  13 

222,  225.  226  n. 

xiii.  5 

163 

XX.  6 

186 

EZEKIEL 

XX.  29 

186 

xliii.  17 

180  w. 

xxh 

188 

xxi.  7  (6) 

189 

HOSEA 

XXV.  11 
xxvi.  19 
xxviii.  24 

176 

223  f. 

175, 176 

iii.  4  f. 
ix.  3,  4 

224 
224  f. 

XXX.  24  t 

170 

Amos 

2   Samuel 

iii.  14 

182 

vi.  17 

188 

Zephaniah 

vii.2 

12 

iii.  4 

217  n. 

X.  8 

140 

xxiv.  9 

1  Kings 

158, 167 

i.6ff. 

Malachi 

48 

i.  50  f. 

182 

Psalms 

ii.  28  ff. 

182 

XX.  1  f . 

48 

iii.  2-4 

192 

cxxiv.  8 

48 

viii.  64 

182  n. 

ix.25 
xii.  22 

210 
12 

X.  34  (33) 

Nehemiah 

200  f .,  202 

xii.  26  ff. 

225  n. 

1  Chronicles 

xii.  32  f. 

212  f. 

xviii.  29 

200  f. 

xvii.  1 

12 

xviii.  30 
xviii.  36 

197 
200  f. 

2  Chronicles 

xix.  10,14 

197 

xi.  2 

12 

xix.  21 

175, 176 

Xiii.  3 

167 

INDEX  II. 


SUBJECTS 


Aaron,  64-70,  71  f .,  74,  99  n. ; 
death  of,  116  f.,  124,  128,  133, 
134,  137,  147. 

Abbreviations  in  MSS.,  38,  41w., 
46,   162  f.,   166,  167. 

Abiram,   130,    132,    143-146. 

Abraliam,  date  of,  174. 

Addis,  180. 

"All,"   76  f.,   170. 

Altar,  before  the  Ark,  182;  the 
great,  201;  horned,  181-184, 
193,  198;  lay,  175,  179-182, 
183,  185  f.,  187,  188,  190,  191, 
192,  194,  195,  196,  197,  198, 
199,  200;  of  burnt-offering, 
181,  199;  steps  of,  180;  Tem- 
ple, 180 «.,  182  w.;  see  also 
"  Sanctuaries." 

Amalek,    105  f.,    172  t?,. 

Angel  of  God,  45,  83  f. 

Aquila,    16,   20. 

Arad,  121  f.,  128,  129  f.,  131,  132, 
134,  138. 

Aram-nab  araim,    136. 

Ark,  the,  custody  of,  68  f. ;  mak- 
ing of,  152-154 ;  position  of, 
90-93. 

Article,  the  Hebrew,  97  f. 

Ashkelon,    132. 

Astruc,  5,   10 1?.,  41. 

"At  that  time,"  147,  172  n. 

Bacon,  108,  111. 

Baentsch,   77. 

Balaam,   13.5,   1.S6,   146  f.,   172  n. 

BamaJi,   190,    191,    192,    198;   see 

also  High  Place. 
Beth-Rehob,  140. 
"  Beyond  Jordan,"  172  n. 
Bikkvrim,   183,   209  ti.,  210. 
Blayney,  86. 
Boiling,  211  f. 
Booty,  law  of,  170. 
Brooke,  A.  E.,  24  w. 
Burney,  0.  P.,  176  w. 
Burnt-offerings,     194,     195,     197, 

200-202;     see    also    Offerings, 

Sacrifice. 


Caleb,  123,  139,  141,  142  f. 

Calendar,  charge  of,  216  f. 

Cambridge  Septuagint,  the 
larger,  14,  16  n.,  22,  23,  24, 
n  n.,  165. 

Carpenter,  J.  Estlin,  3n.,  4,  5,  6, 
7,  8,  9,  12,  13,  28,  41,  43,  57, 
58,  59,  60,  61,  62,  63,  64,  65, 
66,  67,  68,  69,  70,  71,  73,  74, 
75,  76,  78,  79,  80,  81,  82,  83, 
84,  85,  86,  87,  88,  89,  90,  92, 
93,  96,  98,  99  n.,  101,  102,  103, 
104,  105,  106,  107,  108,  109, 
110  f.,  113,  126,  138,  141,  172  n., 
173,  192. 

Charu,   132. 

Cheyne,  140. 

Chronicles,   12,    167. 

Chronology,  85  f.,  97  n.,  98,  99, 
110,  12.5,  129,  133-136,  137, 
138,    149-154,    171  n.,    172  n. 

Clodd,  E.,  49.  56. 

Cloud,  the,  82-90,  100,  101,  106  f. 

Clue  to  the  documents,  the,  4-44. 

Colenso,  134  f.,  157,  160,  169,173. 

"  Composition  of  the  Hexateuch, 
the,"  3  n.,  90  f. ;  see  also  Car- 
penter, Oxford  Hexateuch. 

Conflate  readings,  30,  38,  165  f. 

Cush,  Cushite,  60,  63,  99. 

D,  4,  58  w.,  59  Jt.,  88,  120,  126, 
198,  200,  202,  204,  208,  209, 
214,  215,  220. 

Dahse,  J.,  10  n.,  23  n. 

Daiches,  S.,  173  «. 

Dathan,  129.  132,  143-146. 

Day,  how  reckoned,  213  f. 

De  Rossi,  10  w.,  14  f. 

Deuteronomy,  composition  of,  4; 
influence  on  literature,  219  f. ; 
interpretation  of,  219;  Mosaic 
authorshii)  of,  173;  purpose  of, 
216,  217;  see  also  D  and  the 
Index  of  Texts. 

Dillmann,  100,  108,  192. 

Dittography,   38,   91. 

Documentary    theory,    3-44;    see 


235 


236 


Index  II. 


also  Carpenter,  D,  Deuter- 
onomy, Driver,  E,  Gray,  J,  JE, 
P,  Pii,  Wellhausen. 

Doublets,  104  f.,  109  f. 

Drink-offerings,   201. 

Driver,  S.  R.,  8,  27,  28,  43,  97, 
98,  108,  114,  127,  132,  137,  147, 
148,  150,  151,  152,  153,  162, 
171  n.,   172  n.,   175,    187  w.,   192. 

E,  3  f.,  5,  6,  7,  9,  37  n.,  38,  40,  42, 
43,  44,  57,  58,  59,  60,  61,  63,  64, 
65,  67,  68,  69,  70,  71,  74,  75,  76, 
78,  79,  80,  82,  83,  84,  85,  86,  87, 
88,  89,  91,  92,  93,  96,  97,  99, 
100.  103,  104,  109,  111,  113, 
160,  161,  183,  184,  188,  199  n., 
215,  220;  see  also  JE. 

Edom,  compassing  of,  120,  121, 
123,  125  ff.,  128,  131,  133,  134; 
passage  through,  128,  124, 
128 ;  proposed  .iourney  through, 
119  If.,  127,  129  f.,  131,  136, 
171  n. 

Egypt;  see  Goshen. 

Elath,   128,   180. 

Elders,  the  seventv,  96  n.,  113. 

Eleazar,  67,  68,  69. 

Elephantine  papyri,  220-226. 

EloJiim,   5-44. 

Encrelkemper,  W.,  178  n. 

Eshcol,   128.  140. 

Eusebius,  20  n.,  21. 

Ezekiel,  180  «.,  200. 

Ezion-geber,  115,  126  f.,  128,  130, 
133. 

Ezra,  171,  219. 

Field,  16  7?w..  22,  28. 
First-fruits,  206  f.,  209;  see  also 

Bilckvnm,    ReshiPh. 
Firstlings,  184  «.,  207,  208  f. 
Frazer,  J.  G.,  48,  49,  50,  51,  53  n. 

Gad,  numbers  of,  165  f. 

Gesenius.  79. 

Gezer,  182. 

Gideon,  ephod  of,  190  w.;  sacri- 
fice by,  211  ;  slaughter  by,  176. 

Giesebrecht,  51. 

Glnsburg,  C.  D.,  162  n. 

Girdlestone,  R.  B.,  167. 

Glory  of  the  Lord,  the.  84,  86,  90. 

Glosse?,  18  f.,  88  w.,  99  n.,  122, 
180,  144  f.,  171,  172  n. 

Goshen,   57-60. 


Graf,  179. 

Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis,  10 
n.,  176  n.,  197,  220;  see  also 
Higher  Criticism,   Wellhausen. 

Gray,  G.  B.,  3,  12,  76,  85,  86,  87, 
89,  90,  91,  92,  97  n.,  99  n.,  100, 
101,  114,  116,  117  n.,  121,  133  n., 
185,  186,  187,  188,  140,  141, 
142,  148,  144,  146,  155,  158, 
161,  169,  200,  201  n.,  202. 

Green,  W.  H.,  72,  78,  102. 

H ;  see  Ph. 

Harford-Battersby,   G.,   3  n. 

Hastings,   185,    193. 

Hazeroth,    127. 

Hebrew    MSS.,    10,    11,    14,    165, 

166;    see    also    Abbreviations, 

Septuagiiit,   Textual    Criticism. 
"Hebrew,    The,"    16. 
Hesychius.  20,  21,  22. 
Hexapla,  20  f. 
High    Place,    182  w.,    196,    197  f. ; 

sec  also  Bam  ah. 
High  Priest,  99«.,  170. 
Higher  Criticism,  1-44,  215;  see 

also     Carpenter,     Coleupo.     D, 

Deuteronomy,  Driver,  E,  Gray, 

J,  JE,  P,  Ph,  Wellhausen. 
Hoerning,    R.,    15  r?.,   41  «. 
Hogarth,'  D.   G.,   132. 
Holland,    188. 
Holmes,  24,   165. 
Holy,   208  f. 

Homoeote'euton,  104,  126  f.,  145, 
Hor,    Mount,    116,    121,   128,    124, 

128,    184,    185,   186,   187,   147. 
Horeb,    60;    departure   from,   99, 

128. 
Hormah,    119,    121  f.,    127,    129, 

181,    182,    188. 
House  of  God,  182,  183,  187,  188, 

189,    190,     192,     198,    194,    196, 

197,  200,  205  f„  208;   see  also 

Nob,  Shiloh. 
House  of  the   Lord;   see  House 

of  God. 
Hundred,    167. 
Huntington,   E.,  115. 

INGATHFRTNG,  Feast  of ;  see  Tab- 
ernacles. 

Investigation,  principles  of, 
117  f. 

Ishmael,  17. 

Israel  stele.  131  f. 


Index  IL 


237 


Israelites,  intellectual  condition 
of,  in  Mosaic  age,  47,  53 ;  see 
also  Goshen,  Numbers,  Wan- 
derings. 

Itinerary,  tlie,  117  f.,  122,  126, 
130  f.,  147. 

J,  3f.,  5,  6,  7,  8,  0,  38,  39,  40, 
42,  43,  44,  57,  58,  59,  60,  61, 
63,  64,  71,  74,  75,  76,  78,  79, 
80,  81,  82,  83,  84,  85,  86,  87,  88, 
89,  90,  91,  92,  96,  100,  102,  104, 
106,  109,  111,  117,  159,  160, 
161,  183,  184,  188,  205,  206, 
220;  see  also  JE. 

Jaazer,  spying  out,   134  f. 

JE,  3f.,  50 11.,  73,  83,  92,  108, 
109,  110,  117,  119,  120,  121,126, 
127,  139,  140,  158,  159,  161, 
192.  198,  200,  202,  204,  208, 
209,  210,  217;  see  also  E,  J. 

Jetliro,   60  f.,  62,   98. 

Josliua,  105,  106,  139,  142;  al- 
lesred  priesthood  of  65,   66-70. 

Judges,    96  n.,    106  f.,    113. 

Justice,  administration  of,  99  f., 
106,  187  n. 

Kadesh,  116f.,  118,  119,  120- 
138,   139,   148,  171  n.,   172  n. 

Kautzsch,    108. 

Kedemoth,   wilderness  of,   135. 

Kennedy,  A.  R.  S.,  185. 

Kennicott,  B.,  14,  15,  36,  Sin., 
38«.,   164  n.,   165,   166,   168. 

King,   174. 

Kittel,  14,  42,  62,  77,  178  r^. 

Klostermann,   28. 

Korah.   143-146. 

Kuenen,   153. 

Lagarde,  p.  de,  23,  28,  77,  122, 
162. 

Laws,  43,  171;  groups  of,  in  Pen- 
tateuch, 216;  how  construed, 
194;  some,  only  to  reach  the 
people  through  the  priests, 
206,  215  f.;  see  also  Altar, 
Booty,  Burnt-offerings,  Legis- 
lation. Offerings.  Sacrifice. 

Leavened  Cakes,  214. 

Legislation,  the.  intended  for  a 
people,  settled  in  a  fixed  ter- 
ritory, 221  fP. ;  Mosaic,  215 ; 
see  also  Laws. 

Levi.  Levites;  see  Numbers, 
Priests. 


Literary  evidence,  the  so-called, 
58n.,   59w.,   78-81. 

Lucian,  Lucianic  Recension,  20, 
21,  23,  25,  27,  28,  168;  see 
also   Textual   Criticism. 

McLean,  N.,  24  n. 

Maine,  Sir  Henry,  226. 

Manna,  narratives,  97  n.,  103  f., 
109,  111-113;  pot  of,  85,  86. 

Marriages  with  foreigners,  99  n., 
170  f. 

Massah  and  Meribah,  104. 

Massoretes,   the,    11. 

Massoretic  Text;  see  Textual 
Criticism. 

Meal-offerings,  200-202. 

Merenptah,  132. 

Meribah ;  see  Kadesh,  Massah. 

Micah,  image  of,  190  n. 

Midian,   76  f.,    135,   169-171. 

iAIiriam.  99  «.,  172  n. 

Mistranslations,   101,   184  w.,  207. 

Moab.  message  to,  172  n. ;  wilder- 
ness of,  124. 

Months,  numbered  before  the 
Exile,  213. 

Moserah,   147. 

Mo^^es.  52  f.,  54-56,  60-66,  74,  99, 
105  f.,  111-113,  116,  119,  120, 
137.  152,  171-173;  fasting  of, 
148  f . ;  sons  of,  60,  61  f ..  63  f. ; 
visits  to  the  Mount,  148-152; 
wife  of,  60,  61,  63;  see  also 
Jethro,    Rod,    Zipporah. 

Mountain  of  God,  70  f.;  see  also 
Horeb. 

Murray's  Illustrated  Bible  Dic- 
tionary, 10  n.,  47  n.,  182,  209  n. 

Names,  objective  existence  of, 
47  f,,  51 ;  primitive  ideas  as  to, 
48-56;  see  also  Tetragramma- 
ton. 

Nash  papyrus,  10  n. 

Negeb,  121. 

Nehemiah,   154  w.,   171. 

Nob,  187,  188,  189,  190,  202. 

Noldeke.  220. 

Numbers,    the,    155-169,    170. 

Oboth,    128,    130,    136. 

Offerings,  classified,  196,  199  f., 
219;  National,  199-203:  Stat- 
utory individual,  205,  206,  209, 
210;   see  also   Sacrifice. 

Og,  campaign  against,  134  f. 


238 


Index  II. 


Origen,  20,  21,  22,  25,  27,  30. 

Oxford  Hexateuch,  2 1,  5,  G,  12, 
13,  28,  57,  58  n.,  GO,  G4,  05,  6G, 
07,  08,  70,  71,  73,  74,  75,  70, 
78,  80,  81,  82  f.,  84,  88,  90  f., 
93  f.,  102  f.,  105, 107,  108, 110  f., 
113,  120,  137,  US  71.;  see  also 
Carpenter,  Composition  of  tlie 
Hexateucli. 

P,  4,  5,  7,  9,  38,  39,  40,  42,  43,  44, 
57,  GG,  07,  G8,  70,  71,  73,  74, 
78,  79,  80,  81,  82,  83,  84,  85,  80. 
87,   88,   89,   90,   91,   92,   93,   9G, 

100,  101,  103,  104,  105  n.,  107, 
108,  109,  IIG,  117,  120,  13G,  137, 
139,    140,    142,    143,    158,    159, 

101,  192,    198,    199,    200,    202, 

204,  205,  200,  207,  208,  209, 
210,  211,  212,  213,  214,  215, 
210,  217,  218,  219,  222;  see 
alao  Pli. 

Pamphilus,  20  n.,  21. 

Paran,  wilderness  of,  120, 129, 139. 

Passover,  Feast  of,  183,  184  w., 
194  f.,  200,  207  f.,  212,  213  f., 
222. 

Peace-offerings,  195,  211  f. 

Pentateucli,  the,  authorsliip  of, 
42  f.,  171-174;  transmission  of, 
118;  see  also  D,  Deuteronomy, 
E,  J,  JE,  P,  Ph,  Wellliauseu. 

Pentecost;  see  Weelis. 

Petlior,  130,  146. 

Ph,  4,  79,  198,  209,  218. 

Pilgrimage  festivals,  183,  20G  f ., 
210,  222;  their  dates,  212  f.; 
see  also  Passover,  Tabernacles, 
Weeks. 

Pillar  of  Cloud;  see  Cloud. 

Pitru,  130,  146. 

Plagues,  the,  72-78. 

Plural  verbs,  alternation  of  sin- 
gular and,  65  f. 

Prayer,  221. 

Pre-Mosaic  materials  in  Penta- 
teuch, 42  f. 

Priesthood,  Priests,  66-70,  107, 
181,    188,    189,    190,    191,'    192, 

205,  206,  207,  208,  209,  211, 
210  f.,  218  f.;  garb  of  priests, 
180;  see  also  Aaron,  Altar, 
House  of  God,  Offering,  Sac- 
rifice, Teaching. 

Procedure,  203-206,  209,  210, 
215,  217. 


Quails,  97  n.,  109 1,  111-113. 

Ransom  of  souls,  163  f. 

Rd,  4,  59  n.,  79,  92,  160. 

Red  Sea,  the,  crossing  of,  82, 
102  f.;  journey  by,  119,  120, 
123,  125,  133,  134,  136. 

Redpath,  H.  A.,  10«.,  41n. 

Rehob,   140. 

Reland,  121. 

Reshith,  209  f.,  214. 

Rje,  3f.,  37  n.,  58  w.,  59  n.,  60, 
81,  8:-5.  88,  90. 

Robinson,   156, 

Rod,   the,  70-72,  75,  77. 

Rowlands,  131,  133. 

RP,  4,  58,  81,  88,  103. 

Sacrifice,  189  f.,  221-226;  and 
slaughter,  175-178,  193;  at 
hamotn,  192;  clan,  186;  cus- 
tomary lay,  179,  185  f.,  187, 
191,  194,  195  f.,  197,  205;  how 
prepared,  211 ;  only  possible  in 
the  national  territory  in  Mo- 
saic times  and  for  long  after, 
221  ff. ;  Naaman's  device,  223, 
226;  Hosea's  view,  224  f. ;  Jere- 
miah's, 225,  226  n.;  solutions 
of  the  difficulty,  226;  pro- 
phetic denunciations  of,  217  f. ; 
statutory  individual,  192,  195, 
196  f.,  202/?.,  205,  206;  with 
priestly  assistance,  191,  206; 
see  also  Offerings. 

Salem,  173. 

Samaritan  Pentateuch,  11,  36, 
153  f . 

Samuel,  191. 

"  Sanctuaries,"  175,  179,  185, 
186  f.,  188. 

Sanctuary,  ministry  of,  66-70; 
what  is,  180;  see  also  Altar, 
House  of  God,  Tabernacle. 

Scribes,  bias  of,  1G8  f. 

Septuagint,  the,  11,  13,  14,  15- 
42,  127  w.,  153  f.,  162,  164,  167; 
history  of,  20  f. ;  how  to  use, 
1.3,  22,  24  f.,  30,  37  f.;  see  also 
Cambridge  Septuagint,  Lucian, 
Textual   Criticism. 

Shewbread,   188,  202,  214. 

Shiloh,  187,  189,  190,  210,  211. 

Sihon,  campaign  against,  134  f.; 
message  to,  134  f. 

Singular;   see   Plural. 


Index  II. 


239 


Sin-offering,  212,  214. 

Slaughter,  non-sacrificial,  ITS- 
ITS,  193;  of  statutory  individ- 
ual sacrifice,  206  n. 

Smith,   H.  P.,  lT8n. 

Smith,  W.  R.,  1531,  ITTn., 
18Tn.,  19T. 

Spies,  mission  of  the,  123,  129, 
131,    138-143. 

Strack,  9T. 

Substantive  law,  203-205,  206. 

Swete,  TT. 

Symmachus,   16,  20,  21. 

Syriac  Version,  12. 

"Syrian,   the,"   16. 

Taberah,  96  n. 

Tabernacle,  the,  91,  161,  199; 
making  of,  93,  153  f.,  164 «.; 
ministry  of,  65,  66-TO  ;  position 
of,  93-102;  service  of,  154  n.; 
see  also  Altar,  Tent  of  Meet- 
ing. 

Tabernacles,  Feast  of,  183, 
209  n.,  210  f.,  212  f. 

Teaching  of  the  priest,  206, 
215  f.,  218,  219. 

Tent  of  Meeting,  69,  89  n.,  91, 
93,  96-102,  lOTf.;  see  also 
Tabernacle. 

Terumah,  208  f. 

Tetragrammaton,  the,  4,  46  f., 
52-56,  lT3f.,  184  n.,  189  n. ; 
importance  of,  to  the  docu- 
mentary theory,  4-44;  revela- 
tion of,  4,  41  f.,  46,  53-56; 
use  of,  5-41,  45. 

Textual  criticism,  10-42,  44-46, 
62  f.,  83  w.,  85,  90  n.,  91,  94-96, 
9Tf.,  101,  103  f.,  106,  lOT,  108, 
114,  121-138,  140  f.,  143-146, 
14T,   149,  153  f.,  162-169,  1T2  n. 

Theodotion.   20,  21. 


Theophany,    185  f. 

Thirty-eight     years,     the,     how 

reckoned,  124. 
Thousand,     undue    insertion    or 

omission   of,   166  f. 
Tithes,  210. 
Transliteration        of        Hebrew, 

116  n. 
Trumbull,   H.   C,   131  f.,   133. 
Tylor,  E.  B.,  49. 

Van  Hoonackeb,  A.,  69,  TO,  94- 

96,  184  n. 
Versions,  the,  11,  13  ff.;  see  also 

Septuagint,  Textual  Criticism. 

Wanderings  of  the  Israelites, 
94-96,  114,  116-138;  region  of, 
115. 

Water  episodes,  104  f.,  119  f., 
133,  13T,  138,  148,  156,  160. 

Weeks,  Feast  of,  183,  210;  see 
also  Pilgrimage  festivals. 

Weilhausen,  1,  3,  10  n.,  90,  116, 
ITT,  1T8,  1T9,  180,  184,  185, 
186,  188,  189,  190,  192,  193, 
19T,  198,  200,  203,  204,  205, 
206,  20T,  208,  209  wn.,  210,  211, 
212  n.,  213,  214,  216,  218,  219, 
see    also    Graf-Wellhausen. 

"  When  ye  came  fort^i  out  of 
Egypt,"  ITln. 

Wright,  G.  F.,  115. 

Writing,  Hebrew,  46,  162  f.,  166; 
see  also  Abbreviations. 

Yenoam,  132. 

Zered,  the,  crossing  of,  124,  125, 

13T. 
Zin,    wilderness    of,    116,    120  f., 

139. 
Zipporah,  61,  63,  99  n.,  ITO. 


^Tlivs 


t^^?.; 


iTl^ 


TO 


,eH^^ 


.r^ 


,J^^t.  >=:;,. M^,>-;-oo< 


^^e^^-^^e''^ 


"^^-s^. -JveH-  °^'' 


YC  29734 

GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


BDDDS71S3D 


382416 


UNiVERsrry  of  caufornia  ubrary 


il  lllili mi 


mmm 


I, 


iiiillllilli! 


ii'     I    N  In, 


I 


Hi 


